Posts Tagged ‘Andrew Sullivan’

Andrew Sullivan not in the Journolist?

Saturday, July 24th, 2010

Gay Patriot asks,
Is Andrew Sullivan Too Crazy For Even The Vast Left Wing ‘JournoList’ Gang?

Who knows? maybe Sullivan’s uterus fixation is a little too much?

Check out the YouTube in Gay Patriot’s post, too,

Now transfer the stats in the video to comparable coverage of the Tea Parties, and how many times the Tea Partiers are accused of racism.

Journolist: The gift that keeps on giving!

21884

Robot Andrew on Red Eye

Friday, February 12th, 2010

Via Gay Patriot,

What is wrong with The Atlantic?

Tuesday, February 9th, 2010

I have linked to posts and articles at The Atlantic on ocassion. What I don’t understand is why they keep Andrew Sullivan on the payroll, and provide him with ghostbloggers.

Sullivan, as you may know, has gone off the deep end and claimed that Ahmadinejad is Karl Rove and Sarah Palin’s son is actually her grandson.

But Sullivan’s lunacy has a darker side – his festering hostility towards Israel and the Jews; Leon Wieseltier looks into it,
Something Much Darker
Andrew Sullivan has a serious problem.

Sullivan accuses Israel and the Jews of “intensify[ing] the polarization that the Jihadists relish.”

Sullivan seems unaware that his analysis is nothing more than a digital version of the traditional analysis of Arabists in Washington since 1948, and even before. This analysis is not entirely incorrect: America’s alliance with Israel has often interfered with America’s interests in the Arab world. This is obvious to any student of history. But the American alliance with Israel, like a good deal of American foreign policy, though not these days, was never only an affair of interests. Sullivan is apparently indifferent to the moral dimension of the alliance. On January 6, moaning that he is “sick of the Israelis and the Palestinians,” he noted also that “I’m sick of having a great power like the US being dictated to in the conduct of its own foreign policy by an ally that provides almost no real benefit to the US, and more and more costs.” The high moral dudgeon of the heartless realist: that is quite a trick. Like all of America’s other allies, Israel is a sovereign state, and like all of America’s other allies, it sometimes exercises its sovereignty in ways that baffle or infuriate us; but Sullivan’s patience is wearing thin. “My own view is moving toward supporting a direct American military imposition of a two-state solution,” he wildly announces, “with NATO troops on the borders of the new states of Palestine and Israel.” A new war! Even better, a new war of liberation! Never mind that Israel is a sovereign and a democratic state, and that Palestine is not remotely unified on behalf of such a solution. But at least it would not be a war against a Muslim country. And now that you mention it, isn’t it time that we attacked a Jewish country? It would prove our even-handedness, wouldn’t it? But alas, there’s no way AIPAC will allow it.

Having demanded that the Jews behave apologetically in America, Sullivan now demands that the United States behave apologetically in the world–that it adjust its relationship with Israel to the preferences of the Muslim peoples. This is a little like decrying the election of a black president because it will inflame white racists. (Sullivan writes about the “middle” and the “core” in the Muslim world as if they were the independents and the base in Massachusetts.) But peace between Israelis and Palestinians should be made primarily for them and by them. And anti-Americanism, like anti-Semitism and many versions of anti-Zionism, cannot be adequately understood as a response to the actions of Americans, Jews, and Zionists. Prejudice is not an instance of empirical thinking, as the tenacity of anti-Americanism after the election of Barack Obama demonstrates. There is a progressive president in America now, enchanted by “engagement” and by Muslims. In the universe of jihadism, however, this alters nothing. As a matter of numinous conviction, the jihadists are anti-Americans and anti-Semites and anti-Zionists, and their anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism. They do not want to take the Israel-Palestine question off the table, they want to take Israel off the map. Their goals are literal and maximal. Their worldview is unfalsifiable; their “paradigm” does not “shift.” They do not make Sullivan’s distinction between Israel’s existence and Israel’s actions. If the two-state solution were to come into being, the jihadists would consider their job half-done.

It is true that peace and Palestine would have a modest and marginal impact upon the reputation of the United States in the Muslim world. But the scale of this impact is too inconsiderable to assure anything that Israel does an important place among the causes of jihadism. It may be “loopy,” as Sullivan says, for Israeli policy to “be bracketed entirely out of that dynamic,” but it is even loopier to include it significantly within it. Jihadism is a violent political theology determined by ideas and fantasies that do not come from America or Israel, and its abhorrence of freedom, materialism, democracy, modernity, and the West exceeds even its abhorrence of Jews. We do not determine who Muslims are, and they are more than their reaction to us. What does Sullivan really know about the origins and the writings of the jihadist tradition? Yet he has an even more brilliant theory of the origins of Muslim anti-Americanism. He accounts for it not only in terms of Israel’s policies, but also in terms of “those who want to brandish Gitmo, embrace torture, and accelerate Israel settlements.” The neocons, once more. They are what stand between America and Muslim adulation. Bad Jews are making bad Muslims! I doubt that even Krauthammer believes that Krauthammer is this important. The neocons have deranged Sullivan. I suppose they must take what victories they can get. This would count as merely a small comic episode in American political anthropology, except that Sullivan’s bitterness crosses the line into something that is neither small nor comic.

Which brings me to the question at the start of this post: Sullivan may have the right to express whatever ridiculous and insane opinion he may have, but why is The Atlantic paying him for it and keeping him in their website?

Related:
Dan Riehl has another theory onthe cause Sullivan’s hate.

UPDATE
Via Larwyn, Vanderleun asks the same question.

Jules looks into the Sullivan lacuna

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

I used to read Andrew Sullivan until I decided that he had irretrievably gone off the deep end, and that was before he took up his gynecological research crusade on Sarah Palin. However, there are several blogs I read who are posting on this masterpiece of obsession and hysteria:

There is no proof here of anything, but there is a much more nuanced and detailed narrative of the events (especially now we have Palin’s first considered version of the events since the campaign) that when taken together has definitely helped illuminate what was once obscure and, well, bizarre.

In the Freudian sense, hysteria is a disease of “of the female sexual and reproductive organs.” In Sullivan’s case, the organs are on someone else, but it’s hysteria all the same. That the organs are on someone else may also explain why Sullivan insists that Trig is Bristol Palin’s birth child – no matter that Bristol delivered a full-term baby eight months after Trig’s birth.

Sullivan says he’s hit a lacuna, and Jules Crittenden looks into it with the dignity and reserve it calls for,

For anyone who’s wondering, a “lacuna” is a gap in a manuscript or, anatomically, in tissue such as bone. I know it sounds like a place in Maui where you relax with tropical drinks, but it isn’t. In Sullivan’s case, the lacuna would appear to specifically refer to his latest gap in rationality, though that’s probably better described as more of a sharp dip in a cavernous trough.

Ace says that Andrew Sullivan’s Mixture of Weed, X, and Steroids Results in Super-Mutation Rendering Him Immune to Irony – the X being ecstasy, I suppose – and concludes,

This isn’t a Freudian slip — this is the whole damn Freudian marina

But don’t miss last June’s article by Christopher Badeaux, Through the Looking Glass With Andrew Sullivan. It’s the ultimate take-down on Sullivan’s hubris.

The Sullivan double standard

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

On birthers.

On religion.

On honesty.

And not to be missed, Through the Looking Glass With Andrew Sullivan:

To say that Sullivan has focused his laser-like mind on human reproductive organs is to engage in an understatement worthy of the master himself. We could simply look at Sullivan’s relentless, years-long focus on circumcision (a relentlessness not well-captured by the internet tubes, as Sullivan’s archives traditionally become difficult to search when he moves from site to site), an unusual genre for a man who will never have children and who is not Jewish or Muslim, though perhaps not so unusual given his general interest in the member in question. One could focus on his decision to start calling a 4,000 year old religious tradition “male genital mutilation,” thus cleverly calling untold generations of Jews child abusers and torturers, a decision that marks the sort of intellectual territory into which only a man bravely unwilling to live in Israel can tread.

But to spend too much time on mere ponderings on the presence or absence of foreskin is to do Sullivan an injustice. Anyone can bloviate on that. Few men of letters — indeed, few doctors — can diagnose a woman’s pregnancy forensically from a handful of news articles and photographs. Few are gifted with the ability to toss out thousands of words as tightly organized as Ulysses at the drop of a hat and still able to offer informed medical opinions on changes to the female body during mid- and late-term pregnancy — opinions at odds with normal understandings of human biology and the preeminent textbooks of the field.

But then again, few men are Andrew Sullivan. Depending on the day, Andrew Sullivan might not even be Andrew Sullivan.

Go read it all.

Alinsky’s children: CBS, TNR and Andrew Sullivan

Monday, June 15th, 2009

Gateway Pundit posts, OUTRAGE!… CBS: “Meet Iran’s George W. Bush” (Ahmadinejad!)

The CBS’s article Meet Iran’s George W. Bush
New Republic: Can Anyone Beat Ahmadinejad In This Week’s Election?
, was a retread from an article in TNR:

cbs-mahmoud-bush

Lest we forget, Jim reminds us of two facts:
One:

CBS forgot the part about Bush liberating over 50,000,000 Muslims from two of the most violent regimes in history and bringing democracy to the Middle East.

And two:

For the record- The New York Times detailed the recount investigation paid for by a consortium of newspapers and admitted that BUSH WON in 2004.

Look it up yourself: the NYT actually said,

A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

But the Iranian election means is it’s time to slander, so Andrew Sullivan was over at The Atlantic saying that Ahmadinejad is Karl Rove. The link takes you to Stacy’s post; if you want to check out Sillivan’s post you go there. Sullivan never misses a chance to indulge his Sarah Palin fixation, while at it,

Ahmadinejad’s bag of tricks is eerily like that of Karl Rove – the constant use of fear, the exploitation of religion, the demonization of liberals, the deployment of Potemkin symbolism like Sarah Palin.

What is even more bizarre is Sullivan’s recurrent and perverse focus on Palin’s children, in which he constantly indulges in his posts, about which Althouse comments,

And why should the governor of a state be called an “attention-starved celebreality star”? Is it because you don’t respect her as a politician? You might call everyone with the nerve to run for President/Vice President an attention-starved celebreality star, but the fact is you don’t. Apparently, it’s because she’s got kids who do things that you think we can sit back and view as objects of idle amusement. If anyone is to be a politician — in your nasty little world — their kids better toe the line and stay perfectly prim and healthy and smart (or hide).

But back to Sullivan’s first post: Iran is a Red State:

Think of this regime as Cheney and Rove in a police state setting, and you see what’s been going on. (Of course, Rove and Cheney live within a democratic system utterly unlike Iran, and there’s no evidence they would violate democratic norms as Khamenei just did. But their demagoguery, abuse of the state, dedication to conflict abroad, co-optation of the armed forces, and manipulation of rural and religious voters all have parallels in Red State Iran.)

So what Sullivan’s saying, in his heightened consciousness and loftier intellect which given the chance he probably will humbly acknowledge, is that he would have you believe that voters in red state America don’t vote out of their own free will since Karl and Dick manipulate them any which way, through the deployment of Czarist shams like Sarah Palin and her children. From there to taking the leap and equating George Bush = Ahmadinejad is simply putting the icing on the metaphorical cake, or am I missing something here?

What these statements and false analogies in CBS, TNR, Sullivan and others have in common is Alinsky’s rules:

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

“One of the criteria for picking the target is the target’s vulnerability … the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract.”

Targeting, personalization, polarization, and personification: The plight of the Iranians is just another opportunity.

Sully’s “total political war”

Friday, February 13th, 2009

Back in the olden days before I started blogging I used to read Andrew Sullivan’s blog every day. Once I even emailed him a picture for his “view from your window” series.

I stopped reading Sully a while ago when I got overwhelmed by his rhetoric. Simple as that.

His writing has become more bizarre with time, particularly when it comes to his shameful and embarrasing attacks on Sarah Palin’s children.

Sullivan seems to wrap himself around a meme and can’t seem to let go, something Victor Davis Hanson also noticed,

About every three weeks Andrew Sullivan posts something about what I wrote, apparently because he finds it illiberal—the latest my predictions (before the Obama apocalyptic ultimatums, the Solis tax problems, etc) of a near Obama meltdown. Odd—as I once wrote, my only connection with this bizarre person is a debate once in which quite animatedly he alleged that I had supported torture, before apologizing a few days later when he discovered I had written TMS columns taking the direct opposite stance. So I am absolutely baffled how and why someone like this can continue to be taken seriously: for weeks he peddled vicious, absolutely false rumors that Sarah Palin did not deliver her recent child. On the eve of Iraq, (he now seems to suggest that he was brainwashed by, yes, those sneaky neo-cons), he blathered on with blood and guts rhetoric, mixed with fawning references to Bush, and embraced apocalyptic threats, including the advocacy of using nuclear weapons against Saddam should the anthrax attacks be connected to him. He seems not merely to support any incumbent President, but to deify them, and can go from encomia about the rightwing Bush to praise of leftwing Obama without thought of contradiction.

Sullivan’s latest now is that The GOP Has Declared War On Obama because

This much is now clear. Their clear and open intent is to do all they can, however they can, to sabotage the new administration (and the economy to boot). They want failure. Even now. Even after the last eight years. Even in a recession as steeply dangerous as this one. There are legitimate debates to be had; and then there is the cynicism and surrealism of total political war. We now should have even less doubt about what kind of people they are. And the mountain of partisan vitriol Obama will have to climb every day of the next four or eight years.

The evidence of this war is that Judd Gregg withdrew – never mind how much praise Gregg lavished on Obama during yesterday’s press conference.

To the casual observer Gregg withdrew because of two main reasons:
1. The pork-laden “stimulus” bill is against his principles and Gregg believes it to be harmful.
2. The Obama administration’s move to place the Census Bureau away from the Secretary of Commerce and under the White House.

As I have posted before, the Democrats locked the Republicans out of the discussions on the bill. The bill was then released first to K Street and to lobbyists, allowing no time for the Republicans to be able to read it before it’s voted on. Sullivan either doesn’t realize this, or prefers to ignore it, stating that the Republican’s very serious objection to a bill whose true cost will be close to $3.27 trillion is due to nothing other than “total political war.”

As a blogger, one tends to learn a few things about the “business” of blogging. No matter what, a blog lives and dies by its traffic. Over the four years I’ve been blogging I have seen people savage others simply because it brings them traffic to their blog.

The Atlantic has Sully because Sully’s bringing them traffic. Just on Memeorandum alone you can find that his “total political war” got him links from nine blogs (ten, if you include mine), all of which are at the very least in the top-9,000 (out of 5 million or so) Technorati blogs.

Unfortunately by doing so The Atlantic, like bloggers who engage into flaming other blogs to generate traffic, damages its credibility.

Digg!

Share on Facebook

Bristol Palin has a son

Tuesday, December 30th, 2008

Congratulations to Briston Palin and her boyfriend Levy Johnston on the birth of their son:

Bristol Palin, the 18-year-old daughter of former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, gave birth on Saturday to a healthy 7 lb., 7 oz., baby boy in Palmer, Alaska.

The baby’s name is Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston and he was born at 5:30 a.m., according to Jones.

Now that Bristol Palin’s baby was delivered at full term, and in view that Trig Palin was born on April 18, 2008, it might be a good time for Andrew Sullivan to drop his embarrassing and shameful meme.

UPDATE
TigerHawk comments on the Palin clan nomenclature while Allahpundit links to the Sarah Palin Baby Name Generator

Fausta, if you were born to Sarah Palin, your name would be:
Bullet Bodycheck Palin

Digg!

Share on Facebook