Thursday, December 19, 2002 Not a Professional Enterprise

In a December 9 post, “Pledge Week Update,” Andy said, “Our goal was to have a core supporting readership of around 5,000 or more. If we get that, we can make this a professional enterprise, pay our expenses, hire an intern, and pay me a real salary.”

Today, in a post called “The Results,” Andy says he received “payments” from 3,339 people.

Since Andy fell 33% shy of his stated goal, I guess that means is still not “a professional enterprise.”

Quod erat demonstrandum.

P.S.: Massachusetts tax authorities: Please take appropriate notice.
Tuesday, December 17, 2002
Who’s Not a Republican?

Is it just me or does Andy seem to be expressing lament in Wednesday’s post, “Don’t Miss,” about Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.)?

Andy writes, “He’s now more than embarrassment. He’s an obstacle to the Republican future.”

So is that a good thing or a bad thing?

If Andy is, as he protests, not a Republican and never could be, is this cause for rejoicing or sorrow? The tone of The Daily Dish lately would suggest the latter.

The question then becomes, Why?
Monday, December 16, 2002
Still Taking Moonie Money

I neglected to post the link to Andy’s regular Friday feature in The Washington Times because I assumed the latest round of disclosures concerning the loonies who dot the upper reaches of the paper’s masthead--exposed by Michelangelo Signorile in the New York Press: “That Other Times”--would have shamed Andy into severing the relationship.

Not so. Andy’s column appeared on Friday as usual, and you can find it here: “The Weekly Dish.”

So Andy’s still taking Moonie money.
Saturday, December 14, 2002
What Else Do Andy and Mickey Have In Common?

Aside from their conservative politics and mutually ass-kissing disdain for Howell Raines of the New York Times--yeah, the guy who fired Andy--what do Andrew Sullivan and Mickey Kaus have in common?

A propensity to edit their posts after the fact without alerting readers they have done so.

Thanks for that, Roger.
Thursday, December 12, 2002
In Truth, Beauty. In Beauty, What?

Well, let’s see, what do we have today? Ah, I spot “The Steroid Panic,” yet another paean to testosterone from everyone’s favorite `roid, Andrew Sullivan. Since SullyWatch practically begged me to blog about this, I will. (But I would have anyway.)

In the event you haven’t read it, the piece is, ostensibly, a comparison between recent articles on steroid use in the New York Times (Howell Raines. Therefore, bad! Very, very bad!) and Reason magazine (Libertarian. Therefore, good.) (Andy is very Manichean, as you well know.)

Writes Andy: “[W]here both pieces agree is the need for much more research on how steroids can improve health and beauty, if used responsibly. I’ve experienced this myself and seen it in others with HIV and AIDS - enough to wonder how much more good these drugs could do if allowed to be used more widely.”

At last, the truth. At least, the truth according to Andy, which is that access to anabolic steroids shouldn’t be restricted to those who have a genuine medical need for them, a group that unfortunately, but providentially, it seems, includes Sullivan. Instead, they should be readily available to everyone. Andy is a little vague on whether that availability should be immediate or should be delayed until the long-term health effects of steroid use can be thoroughly studied. The health, safety, and well being of the general public would suggest the latter course to any reasonable person, but don’t count on Andy joining that bandwagon anytime soon.

Either way, though, Andy, and many others like him, win out. After all, Andy still has his Androgel script and I suspect he knows plenty of men who have access to steroids through script-pad-happy doctors, gay or not, who are willing to supply their needs (or demands). As for those without such resources…they’re just stupid losers. And skinny little wimps, too. And Andy could kick their asses! And they would deserve it. Why are they sitting there moronically worried about possible (remotely possible, I guess we’re to assume) liver damage, prostate cancer, cardiovascular disease, strokes, psychotic episodes, acne, and shrinking testicles when they too could become things of “beauty.”

We must keep in mind, however, that Andy, always the voice of moderation (except when it comes to Howell Raines, the New York Times, Bill Clinton, the Democratic Party, etc.) implies that he uses anabolic steroids “responsibly.”

“Responsibly” is an interesting choice of words here. My nearest dictionary, Merriam-Webster, defines “responsible,” the adjectival form of the adverb “responsibly,” as: 1. liable to be called upon to answer for one’s acts or decisions; 2: able to fulfill one’s obligations; 3: able to choose for oneself between right and wrong; 4: involving accountability or important duties.

I suspect Andy meant to say “judiciously” (“judicious, adj.: having, exercising, or characterized by sound judgment”), but I’ll be generous and presume that in choosing the word “responsibly” Andy was employing the word as defined in Merriam-Webster’s third entry for “responsible”: “Able to choose for oneself between right and wrong.”

We know already that Andy is operating on his own with respect to matters pertaining to his health (and the health of many others) and, it has been sad to witness, with respect to his writing career as well. As one of SASsy’s readers, an internist, wrote: “I am tired of hearing about the virtues of testosterone from a man who obviously takes more than is needed. You could make the argument that the ‘marvelous feeling’ [Sullivan] describes [after applying Androgel] is just a lesser version of the psychosis that has been well documented from anabolic steroid abuse.”

And Andy himself has expounded on how testosterone can make men “feel good” (actually, feel better than there are “allowed to”), and more recently, to help men “feel more like men.” Given Andy’s self-confessed off-label and physiologically misdirected usage of Androgel, it’s clear that he not only fails to comprehend the lexicographical difference between the words “responsible” and “judicious,” he fails to make the corresponding distinction in his use of prescribed medications.

Having said all that, I’m sure readers were struck first and foremost, as I was, by Andy’s use of the term “beauty” in this particular post. Andy says we need “much more research on how steroids can improve…beauty.” We do? Says who? Not me. And I say the only word for an HIV-positive man who advocates that precious funds for medical research be devoted to studying the aesthetic benefits of steroids is appalling. OK, maybe grotesque.

With these small sentence fragments Andy revealed where his priorities lie. They lie in beauty, not truth; surface and not depth; the skin and not the heart, let alone the brain. Never again should Andy be allowed to criticize other gay men for being shallow, superficial, or narcissistic, or to criticize those who do, because Andy, this self-appointed arbiter of all things gay and bright and “conservative,” has revealed himself to be exactly that -- shallow, superficial, and narcissistic. And less. Much less.

As noted above, Andy adds: “[I] wonder how much more good these drugs could do if allowed to be used more widely.” What the hell is that supposed to mean? What “good” do these drugs do, anyway? For one thing, they help people with AIDS-related wasting syndrome to maintain a healthy weight and obtain more benefits from the food they eat. They help men with a genuine testosterone deficiency to bring their hormones into balance. Beyond that, the “good” they do is purely cosmetic. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. We as a society have approved a number of treatments that are solely cosmetic in nature, and beyond the medical industry, there is a huge business in lotions, creams, powders, ointments, and the like, all designed solely to enhance one’s appearance.

But other than for the tiny slice of the population that has a genuine medical need to anabolic steroids, Andy is recommending that these untested substances be more freely distributed, and this in the pursuit of the undefined virtue of “beauty.” Toward what end? The creation of a more beautiful people? The most beautiful flock of eagles known to mankind? The eradication of ugliness in all of its forms? Mustn’t disturb the crown prince, you know.

What the hell, I’ll go into deep Susan Sontag-Bertram Gross-Michelangelo Signorile mode here: This is fascism. This is fascism with a friendly face. This is fascism with a Chelsea boy’s face. And it’s not pretty. And deep down, it doesn’t fit Andy, and I suspect Andy knows this all too well.

After all, Andy is writing honestly when he says that he has seen the ways using steroids has improved his own “health and beauty,” at least when it comes to the “beauty” part. (I can’t speak for his health since I’m not his physician and I do not know Sullivan, but as for his “beauty,” and I’m defining that in the broadest possible terms, he’s absolutely correct.) Andy, who cannot be described as tall, was once a slender 20-something young lad. Over time, however, he became what most people would call a little chubby. (There’s nothing wrong with that, I’m just stating it as a fact.) More recently, however, he has become more lean and solid. It has been, I must say, a striking transformation.

I respect Andy, I truly do, for being honest about the source and spark of his dramatic, but unnatural, metamorphosis. As the Times article noted, many steroid users, when pressed, will swear their increased muscle mass stems entirely from consistently heavy exercise. Andy’s status as a “public figure” of sorts likely weighed on his decision to go public on this issue, but he obviously is pleased with the outcome of his use of steroids, happy enough to share his glee.

As I wrote this little sketch the larger point came upon me suddenly. While Andy bitches that the concern of the Times and (many) others about the potential risks of non-prescription steroid use to an individual’s physical health, he says not a word about the links between non-prescription steroid use--and abuse--and the steroid user’s mental health. This is an odd oversight, but one that is very revealing.

Far be it for me to call Andy crazy, and I’m not doing so, but I can’t help wonder what lies in the mind of a man who so unabashedly chooses a chemically derived version of “beauty” over the natural glory of a well formed and physically disciplined man. Or what goes through the mind of a man who thinks men need drugs to “feel more like men.” Or what goes through the mind of a man who approaches a nearly orgasmic state of ecstasy after applying Androgel to his chest and then feels the need to tell the world about the experience.

I have the feeling it has nothing to do with his physical health.
Tuesday, December 10, 2002
Mixing Mediocrities

Andrew Sullivan today tells the world, “Rhodes scholars are among the most irritating mediocrities on earth.”


I wonder what that makes Harkness Fellows.

Still more evidence of why Andrew Sullivan (R-Not! (???)) should never even try to write about economics is found in today’s bit titled “Uh-Oh.”

Andy writes, “Isn’t it a mite bit embarrassing that the new candidate for Treasury secretary ran a company, CSX, that didn’t pay a dime in federal taxes for the last four years, despite making profits?”

No, Andy, it’s not embarrassing, it’s par for the course in this country.

And that’s just the way the political party you constantly champion, but which you say you could never join, wants it.
Monday, December 09, 2002
What’s It All About?

In case you thought the dust-up regarding the recent racially coded remarks by Senator Trent Lott (R) in praise of Senator Strom Thurmond (R) were about Lott’s enduring and poorly hidden racism and the Republican Party’s longstanding habit (or policy) of coddling politicians harboring and expressing such sentiments, you were wrong.

No, as we learn from a piece today called “Trent Lott Must Go,” it’s really about Howell Raines and the New York Times, and by extension, therefore, it’s about Andrew Sullivan (R).

But then again, isn’t it always?

(In case you missed it, Lott’s latest outburst of racism, dressed up as a sentimental yearning for the good ole days of the Deep South, you know, when blacks were lynched and prevented from voting and all that, was masterfully and doggedly covered by Eschaton.)
Sunday, December 08, 2002
Roger Ailes is on the Right Track

I think that guy Roger Ailes--no, not the bald, repulsive one--is onto something.

Today Roger had this to say in praise of a good idea--Imagine that!--of Andy’s:

“Why not appoint an ombusman [sic from sic in original at The Daily Dish] from outside the Daily Dish to respond on a weekly basis on the main page to criticisms of Sully’s ravings? It’s what the Washington Post does. My suggestion: ask Sully Watch and Smarter Andrew Sullivan. They’re on to Sully’s bullshit and no fools. The Dish has got to stop acting like the Vatican and open itself up to scrutiny and debate. Hey, Sully. Shut me and all the other critics up, for Pete’s sake. And do your huge ass a huge-ass favor as well.”

Busy as I am, I would be happy to oblige.
Friday, December 06, 2002
A Service for SASsy’s Readers

As a service to SASsy’s readers, regular and intermittent, I’m providing a link to Andrew Sullivan’s regular Friday column in the Washington Times, known as The Weekly Dish, in large part because readers of The Daily Dish have good reason not to be aware that it even exists.

“Tidbits from a broad range of political and cultural topics,” they call it.

This week: Five tidbits, two refer explicitly to Howell Raines of the New York Times and one does so implicitly.
Tuesday, December 03, 2002
Recreational Blogging

I know Andrew Sullivan (R) can give us the 4-1-1 on, well, the “4/20,” the righteous bud that stokes many a libertarian fantasy (and newspaper column, magazine article, and blog note), but I was still surprised to see Andy, in a bit today called, inevitably, “Raines Watch,” refer to the use of steroids as “recreational drug use.”

I suppose abusing, or at the very least, overusing, prescribed steroids in order to enhance one’s physique in all the right places could qualify as recreational in nature, especially for those who get a high off of Androgel. But isn’t this the kind of talk one expects from, say, a college student mouthing off in the school paper rather than someone who expects his ever utterance against the New York Times to be taken seriously?
Monday, December 02, 2002
You Scratch My Ass, I’ll Scratch Yours

In today’s Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan (R) writes, “Matt Drudge…is now helping sell the New York Times. Congrats to both parties.”

Meanwhile, in a development still not mentioned at The Daily Dish, Andy is now helping sell the Washington Times.

Congrats to both parties, as they say.
Tuesday, November 26, 2002
Let No Booger Go Unpicked

Gosh, he sure is quick, isn’t he! Always on the ball, especially when it comes to Howell Raines and the New York Times. In this campaign, leave no stone unturned, let no booger go unpicked.

Andrew Sullivan (R) today writes (at Raines Watch The Daily Dish, on the web, not The Weekly Dish, for the Washington Times): “I’ve also noticed how Alessandra Stanley has eagerly become Raines’ dutiful copy-slave.”

Does anyone, anyone at all, even Andy, have a clue where this sudden animosity toward Stanley comes from?

A grand total of two articles by Stanley have appeared in the Times since Nov. 19, when Andy accused the reporter of sucking up to Raines: “Forget the Sex and Violence; Shame Is the Ratings Leader” (Nov. 20) and “CBS Silent in Debate on Women Joining Augusta” (Nov. 25), an article with a byline shared with Bill Carter.

(Two articles in seven days! Howie, you copy-slave driver, you! For shame.)

Andy doesn’t mention either article and he doesn’t say whether he objects to both pieces or only to the Augusta National article, but I’ll assume that’s what he’s quivering about since it is the subject at hand in this particular post.

Given that, I’ve said it before, I’ll said it again: Click through and read the article. Let me know if you find anything objectionable in what is really just a run of the mill--even mundane and pedestrian--newspaper article.
Thursday, November 21, 2002
Just a Quick Correction…Of Andy

Just a quick note, Andy: Wellesley is not an Ivy League college. Never has been, never will be.

The Ivy League, as I’m sure you know, Andy, is really nothing more than an athletic conference. And during some trial runs early in the 20th century, when the women of Wellesley College went up against the men of Dartmouth College in, among other things, football and wrestling, let’s just say Big Green walked over the Blue.

But those Wellesley girls humiliated the Hampshire boys at the taps later in the evening.

Some things never change.
The Sound of One Eraser Clapping

Norah Vincent (R), friend of Andrew Sullivan (R), is in another of her regular snits. This time it’s over “chalking,” a practice that has emerged on a few scattered college campuses that entails using chalk to write messages, political or otherwise, on sidewalks.

In her Los Angeles Times column today, Norah argues the practice doesn’t constitute protected speech and should be banned. It’s a position that a reasonable person could advance, but Norah approaches the subject with her customary faulty logic.

Before facing the free speech argument head on, Norah, a noted aesthete, writes, “Chalking is graffiti, it's ugly, and it should be illegal on campus for the same reason that it's illegal in most other places. It diminishes quality of life, and if everyone did it, college idylls would become as squalid as subway tunnels.”

From sidewalk chalk to subway tunnels. This is quite a leap, one that I would advise Norah not to attempt without first giving consideration to the fact that chalk dissolves in the rain.

Of course, deeper considerations abound.

“If students want to make this case [that chalking is protected by the First Amendment], they’re going to have to accept one particularly inconvenient truth about free expression. It applies to everyone, not just your friends and co-conspirators,” Norah writes, adding, “Naturally, though, chalkers don’t see it this way.”

The implication, which becomes slightly more clear in Norah’s next paragraph, is that chalkers are, to a man, if you’ll pardon the expression, liberals or leftists, or at least “politically correct.” Norah would have us believe that chalkers are budding Bolsheviks opposed to any expression of moderate or conservative opinions.

Norah’s evidence for this assertion? None whatsoever. Why provide any when she can simply rely on guilt by inference, culpability by ungrounded association? As she does here:

“The same students who shriek loudest in defense of their right to deface sidewalks with intentionally offensive ‘speech’ are usually those who campaign hardest for enforcing draconian politically correct ‘hate speech’ codes.” [Emphasis added.]

And here:

“They’re also often the same people who pilfer entire print runs of conservative campus newspapers when those papers run objectionable commentaries.” [Emphasis added.]

“Not exactly civil libertarians, are they? Nope, just the usual wilding packs of self-entitled, sophomoric pranksters falling back on high principles when it suits them,” Norah concludes. “It’s time they get the spanking they deserve or start living up to what free speech really means.”

No, Norah, it’s high time the Times hired an editor to give you--and your illogical and deceitful prose--the spankings you both so richly deserve.

Is it any wonder Norah and Andy are buddies?
Tuesday, November 19, 2002
Reading Between The Lines

Andrew Sullivan (R), self-promoter extraordinaire, today writes, about himself (“natch,” as Andy might say):

“WHAT CONSERVATIVES MISS TODAY: My Bradley lecture, given earlier this month, has just been transcribed by the American Enterprise Institute. It’s posted here. It’s about the relevance of Michael Oakeshott to contemporary conservatism. A couple of caveats: especially in the question and answer section, this is obviously not a vetted scholarly text. My only notes - apart from quotes - were scribbled on a postcard. I hope to nail it down and turn it into a real essay this winter. Until then, please treat the lecture as an extemporaneous work-in-progress. And forgive occasional grammatical (and other) errors.”

In other words…Prepare yourself for a piece-of-shit stream of consciousness.

I’ll tell you one thing, if I sponsored “the Bradley lecture,” whatever the hell that is, and the honoree showed up without a prepared address, only notes “scribbled on a postcard,” to deliver “an extemporaneous work-in-progress” about the subject of his doctoral dissertation--easy fallback, that is--I’d be pretty unhappy. Pissed, even. I might even think the whole damned enterprise was a waste of money.
Clueless Watch

Today I learned that like the rest of our most vocal warmongers, Andrew Sullivan (R) hasn’t a clue as to what the military is really like.

Among today’s treasure trove of ridiculous assertions and half-baked contentions, Andy includes this:

“Nevertheless, big, brawny straight guys - in the military no less! - scream like six year olds the minute they suspect a gay guy might find them sexy.”

Do you see the assumption at work here?

To Andy, the U.S. military is filled is “big, brawny straight guys.” Yes, I know Andy knows, as we all do, that there are plenty of gay men (and straight and gay women) in the military, but looking at this piece apart from the gays in the military argument, the operative words are big and brawny.

I’m sure thinking this does much for Andy’s psyche, including allowing him to believe the soldiers and sailors in America’s “citizen army”--the military our most insufferable resident alien has asserted are in uniform to do his bidding and who gives a flying fuck what they think--are all big, brawny, mature, and brave.

Sorry, chap, but it doesn’t work that way.

Your image, Andy, is an illusion, a misconception, a lie, a fantasy--take your pick--and it is based on ignorance, willful ignorance, and a glaringly obvious detachment from the realities of the U.S. military.

So, Andy, I recommend you do some research. You can do it in the field if you like, or on the web, but take a good hard look at the men and women in the armed services today. You’ll be surprised, because along with the big and the brawny and the mature and the brave, you will see the small and the skinny and the young and the pimply and the scared shitless.

These, dear “Brit abroad,” are the American kids--literally, kids--that you are so eager to send to a possible early death while you safely cruise around Provincetown on that tired-ass bicycle of yours in search of bagels, coffee, and the morning paper, taking breaks for visits to the gym and walks of the beagle, all the while feeling strong and tough and mean and principled.

Sleep well, Queen’s subject. I have no doubt you do, but I’m convinced it’s a sound slumber you have done nothing to earn.
Hilarity Watch

Andrew Sullivan (R) today writes, “When a woman finds me attractive, I’m flattered, even though there’s always a little discomfort.”

Not only is this statement hilarious on its face, it’s intriguing as well.

Who, exactly, in this assuredly hypothetical interchange, is discomforted?

Andy? Or the hypothetical woman who hypothetically finds Andy attractive?
Osama bin Laden:
Dead, Alive, Maybe Not Dead, Dying, Hiding, Whatever

American intelligence agencies have concluded that Osama bin Laden is, indeed, alive, and is not being held in captivity by the U.S. or any of our allies.

That’s weird, because I read at The Daily Dish that “They got him” back in December.

Not only did Andrew Sullivan (R) say then that “They got him,” he added, “Of course they have.”

So much cheerleading has just got to make a man hoarse, don’t you think?
Suck This

Today Andrew Sullivan (R) put on his media critic hat--the tall, pointed, cone-shaped one--for yet another lame rush at New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines.

And in a manner not altogether different from his smearing of the award-winning Rachel Swarns, Andy writes this about Alessandra Stanley:

“Good Raines suck-up, by the way, Alessandra.”

Yep. Andy said that. The same Andy who’s spent the last two years kissing every right-wing ass in Washington and sucking up to the Bush administration in a misguided search for a regular paycheck.

(Note to Andy: Think security clearance.)
Andy Plays Journalist!

Check it out!

“PELOSI AS CONSERVATIVE CATHOLIC:…Conservative Catholic? If you have any data supporting this assertion of hers, please let me know. I’ve put a call in to her office asking for details. When I get any, I’ll report back.”

So Andrew Sullivan (R) actually made a phone call to the subject of one of his psychotic rages, providing her the opportunity to elaborate on a fleeting characterization in the media!

I love it when Andy gets all tough and pretends to be a journalist like this. What’s sad is that it’s such a rare event.
Monday, November 18, 2002
Who’s the Most Forthcoming?
The Vatican, the Politburo, or Andy?

On Saturday Andrew Sullivan (R) alerted eager Dish readers that his latest Idiocy Watch--about Eminem, God help us--is available at Salon, which actually had the good sense not to expect anyone to actually pay money to read it.

Andy’s latest Idiocy Watch is also available at the Washington Times web site, incorporated, as several have in the past, into The Weekly Dish, his regular Friday column for that paper. (Note: Links to Andy’s Times columns are not provided at The Daily Dish.)

Wait a minute. No, it’s not. In fact, The Weekly Dish wasn’t published in the Times last Friday at all.

I wonder why not? Did the Times drop Andy’s column? Was it only being published on a trial basis? Was there an editorial dispute between Andy and the Times over Friday’s column specifically? Has Andy pulled his column from the Times?

Care to respond, Andy?

Probably not. These are questions that cannot be answered now and instead await the verdict of historians, for, if I may borrow Andy’s own words, when it comes to his relationship with the Washington Times, Andy “make[s] the Vatican and the old Soviet Politburo look forthcoming.”
Safire and Sullivan: Not Seeing the Obvious

It’s no wonder the once merely overly ripe and now overly ripe and rancid William Safire (R) can’t move from the concluding paragraph of today’s partisan parchment to the obvious conclusion to be drawn from political life in America today, so perhaps it should be no wonder the increasingly ripe and rancid Andrew Sullivan (R) can’t either.

Safire, writing about President John F. Kennedy--yet again, because some hacks never get over certain things--says: “[C]andidates should not put ambition above honesty in dealing with questions about their physical and mental ability to serve. And they should order their doctors to tell the public the whole truth.”

Sullivan, writing about about Kennedy, but with, as Andy himself might say, “a soup├žon” of Sullivan, adds: “The full extent of Kennedy’s physical impairment and the deception, lies and diversions it required are surely an important part of the historical record. I just don’t buy the idea that this level of medication had no effect on the government of the country. It must have. The question now for historians is: how much? And what difference did it specifically make?”

Excuse me, gentlemen, but has neither of you heard of a man named Richard L. Cheney?

Vice president of the United States. Caretaker of The Boy King. Has a long history of cardiac problems. Recipient of several major surgical interventions. Tends to disappear from public view without explanation.

Ringing any bells, boys?
Saturday, November 16, 2002
We Could Be Over and Done With This By Now

Andy’s pissing and moaning about the “gays in the military” issue again.

I wonder why he just won’t come out and say, “You know, guys, we could have been done with this issue nearly a decade ago. But, nooooooo! You had to cover your chestnuts and play to your right flank. Why does no one listen to me?!”

Oh, and by the way, if I were SullyWatch I might say something really snarky at this point like, “Andy sure likes the word chestnut, doesn’t he?” But I’m not SullyWatch, so I’m not going to say it.
A Rumble After Church Sunday

We all know Andy likes his testosterone as much as any run of the mill drug abuser, but even after massive over-applications of Androgel, I see he’s really not so tough after all.

Here’s the “money quote” from Secretary of State Powell’s remarks in reaction to certain anti-Islamic observations recently published in the media, remarks Andy adoringly cited yesterday:

“This kind of hatred must be rejected.”

That, according to Andy, is how one “takes on” right-wing religious rabblerousers, those who made the anti-Islamic observations I just mentioned.

And Andy reminds us that President Bush nobly “paved the way” for Powell’s bold and daring declaration with this brave, thrice-hedged statement:

“Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans. Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others.”

Wait a minute. “That have been uttered.” Isn’t that the passive voice that gets Andy’s jockstrap in such a knot? In this case it should have but apparently it didn’t.

In fact, without the background material the reporters added, a person reviewing Bush and Powell’s comments in the articles Andy linked to would have no idea what Bush and Powell are referring to, and more important, no idea who they were talking about.

These great and courageous men--Andy’s heroes--cannot even muster up the courage to criticize Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson by name. I bow before this display of manly strength and fortitude.

Come on! This is WUSS WORLD!

Here’s Andy in the principal’s office: “Sir, I’m not here to tell on anybody or anything, and please don’t tell anyone I was here, but there are these bad kids saying bad stuff about my friends George and Colin’s friends from Araby and they’re not happy about it, George and Colin, I mean…Yeah, it’s really bad stuff...Yeah, really mean and not nice at all stuff...Yeah, I know who’s saying that bad stuff…Yeah, George and Colin know who’s saying that bad stuff too…No, sir, no. We can’t tell you they’re names. They’ll get really, really, really mad at us. And then their friends might not play with us anymore…No! Please don’t make me tell!...Please just make them stop because it’s really no fun at all, and George and Colin aren’t happy and I really want them to be happy.”

Anyway, watch out, kids. There’s going to be a rumble after church on Sunday!

It’s going to be Bush and Powell on one side and on the other, two conservative religious Republicans who might publicly be named later.
Thursday, November 14, 2002
Will the Last Warmonger Left Standing
Please Turn Out the Light?

This little drip of drool is from Tuesday, but it bears notice.

Writes Andy: “IS IT OVER II? Great and simple response from a reader: ‘It’ll be over when every last al Qaeda recruit is dead.’ Amen.”

Simple is the word for it.

I wonder when this day might come.

Any ideas, Andy?

Any at all?

Any thoughts on how we can get to this great and glorious day, one I also would welcome with prayer and thanksgiving, without destroying ourselves, our democracy, and our civilization in the process?

Any consideration that lobbing bombs hither and yon might do as much to sustain and enhance al Qaeda’s recruitment drive as to quell it?

Any wonder whether a massive, most likely unilateral, military attack on Iraq, and then Iran, and then Syria, and then Lebanon, and then Sudan, and then Libya, and then...might actually spawn more al Qaeda-like organizations, more radical terrorists hell-bent on self-destruction and the annihilation of dual-property-owning bourgeois imperialist societal leeches like yourself?

Ah, yes, talking like a decadent leftist, I guess. You know, cycle of violence, root causes, that kind of thing. Don’t mind me. I’m just trying to think a little more deeply about all this than the typical high-school dropout. I hope you’ll join me some day, Andy.
Wednesday, November 13, 2002
For the Birds. Literally.

Proving, in a bit more than 250 words, that his Harvard Ph.D. isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, Andy today offers an analysis of American politics that would earn a D at any community college worthy of its state cosmetology board certification.

Not just “hawks” and “doves,” Andy says. Also “eagles.”


I’m embarrassed to even read this crap.
Monday, November 11, 2002
I’m Starting to Catch On

Andy on healthcare, which, last I heard, for him was being paid for through the inexplicable largesse of one Marty Peretz:

“As someone who grew up in a country with socialized medicine, I’m more than aware of what it really means: the rationing of bad healthcare.”

That explains the teeth anyway.
Friday, November 08, 2002
Short-Term Memory is the First Thing to Go

Heeeeere’s Andy:

“This one has to be read to be believed. The military, which is having severe shortages of personnel who speak Arabic, is actually firing Arabic speakers because they're gay. The New Republic will have a story online soon about this scandal. I'll link as soon as it's up. Geitner Simmons provides the crucial and damning background to this insanity. The anti-gay policy makes no sense anyway. No other civilized country engages in such bigotry. No other country at war would put discrimination against its own people above the need to fight a deadly enemy. This targeting of Arabic speakers is, of course, only the tiniest part of it. Each year, the military throws away hundreds of good servicemembers, wastes millions of dollars, to pursue a policy that is not only unconscionable as a moral issue, but dumb as a practical matter. And now they're jeopardizing the war on terror as well. When will what Dick Cheney once described as an ‘old chestnut’ of a policy finally be abolished?”

If memory serves, back in around, oh, 1993, this country nearly tore itself asunder over this very same issue, namely, whether openly gay men and lesbians should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military.

And if memory serves, those hell-bent on tearing the nation asunder over this “old chestnut” were almost exclusively Republicans, i.e., members of the Republican Party, what Andy likes to call “a natural home” for gay people.

And those who thought this nation was great and good enough to approach the 21st century with its head held high, leading the world instead of trailing woefully behind, were largely Democrats, those “rancid and bitter” leftists.

And the man who pressed this issue hardest, out of principle and not out of political expedience, was none other than President Bill Clinton.

You know, Andy, while there may be a few scattered, besotted, and dottering Americans--though none that I know of--who think England is “a halcyon place of tea, crumpets, and generations of aesthetes who went to tony private [sic] schools and know much of Shakespeare and Milton by heart,” this despite the little land of shopkeepers and laundry in-takers having reached its political, economic, and cultural peak some 150 years ago, that doesn’t give you the right to act is if we’re all idiots.

The guy’s a walking, talking advertisement for draconian, Pim Fortuyn-like restrictions on immigration, isn’t he?
Thursday, November 07, 2002
Prime Time

“HEADS UP AGAIN: Tomorrow, from 8 am till 10 am EST, Hitchens and I will be taking calls on C-SPAN.”

We are talking prime time here, people.

Jeebers, who even knew C-SPAN was up and running at 8:00 a.m.?

What, no jazzercise for fat-assed middle-aged conservative white men?

Hey! There’s Andy’s next career!
Now That’s Butch!

“Nick Kristof’s column yesterday reads like a potage de Sullivan.”

Jesus, Mary, who talks like this?
Wednesday, November 06, 2002
Riddle Me This

Here’s Andy: “RIORDAN WOULD HAVE WON: Can anyone doubt that now? Bush would have a friendly governor in California in 2004 if the California Republican party hadn’t allowed itself to become captive to the hard right. The Dems [sic] are not the only people to learn lessons from last night. The Republicans need to internalize [sic] the fact that religious right conservatism, especially in places like California, is poison.”

Tossing aside the swipe at “religious right conservatism,” which is surely disingenuous, given that it is the core belief of the psychotic Moonie types backing the Washington Times, the thin little, heavily subsidized “newspaper” that now helps pay for Andy’s Adams-Morgan condo and Provincetown beach house, What gay man in his right[-thinking] mind would root for either Richard Riordan or Bill Simon for California’s governorship?

Maybe a dopey Brit who doesn’t understand American politics, despite the degree that notorious grade-inflator Harvard University pasted on his randy ass?

None that I know. And let me tell you, this here fag hag knows more homos than Andy does, or at least more homos that are still speaking to me than are still speaking to him.

And by the way, when, when if ever, does Andy plan to tell his loyal but deluded readers that he is now taking money from the irredeemably right-wing homophobic Washington Times? Never?

And when, when if ever, will the mainstream media, of which the Washington Times is most definitely not a part, draw anyone’s attention to Andy’s new job?
Sunday, November 03, 2002
Freak Me Out!

On a personal note, I almost completely freaked out when I came home late last night: I thought Andrew Sullivan was in town! And in my building, no less!

Some numbskull in my building, his windows naturally facing the courtyard, or what I prefer to call the sound-reverberation tank, was blasting, ugh, the Pet Shop Boys, easily one of the most wretched “cultural” exports foisted upon us by the English, and one that went unmentioned in the latest New Republic cover story.

Fortunately, when the doorman examined the situation he found not kennel-tenders aficionado Sullivan, but an apparently harmless couple of homely lads with nothing better to do on a Saturday night.

In retrospect I realize it couldn’t possibly have been Andy. Among other useless things, his blog serves as a veritable itinerary of his every movement.

UPDATE - Monday, November 4th

New tenant. Loves to blast dance music. Sleeps late. Starts work late. Works in one of the services trades. Days off are Sunday and Monday. Take a wild guess. Building management unresponsive. Police will need to be called nightly. I ask so little of municipal services, but on this issue--noise--I will not budge.
Friday, November 01, 2002
Camille Paglia: Proponent of Pederasty

The right and righteous Andrew Sullivan took to the pages of, wait, took to the screen at “The Daily Dish” this week to chastise, yes, again, the New York Times--now called, with laughable immaturity, “Pravda”--as well as his able foe Richard Goldstein for ideologically “air-brushing” the obituary and eulogy, respectively, written this week about Harry Hay.

From what I gather--this isn’t really my area of expertise--Hay was an early pioneer in the gay rights movement, and also a Communist, and was considered by many, including himself, to have been--Horrors!--rather effeminate.

As my readers well know, over at Butch World, where phrases like “Quelle surprise” and “Take that, Al Gore” are the norm, femininity is nonetheless not tolerated, even in women. And certainly not in the gay rights movement.

No, at “The Daily Dish” they like their gay-rights advocates to be right-wing men. And they like their gay men muscular, even if chemically enhanced, and masculine, even if that’s merely an affect unconvincingly displayed. It is this picture of ersatz brawn and manliness, and only this picture, that can be presented to the world.

It seems that Hay also advocated allowing NAMBLA, a coterie of pederasts, to participate in the gay-rights movement, though I haven’t seen any evidence he was actually a member of the organization or a proponent of its agenda. But in the world according to Andy, the only world the poor sap knows, Hay was “a supporter of the sexual abuse of children, fervently supporting the vile organization, NAMBLA.”

Left unmentioned in this hysterical diatribe: the despicable Camille “My Sixties Generation” Paglia, friend of Andy, certifiable lunatic, and vociferous proponent of pederasty.

Atrios, who writes a blog called Eschaton, nails Andy for this devious--and eminently self-serving--oversight, and bangs up Andy’s favorite chicken-lover and, I’m willing to bet, chicken-hawk too, Camille “Come here, little boy, and suck my dick!” Paglia, and then some:

“Can we call on Sully to now frame all discussion of Ms. Paglia as ‘Camille Paglia, supporter of the sexual abuse of children?’

“There’s also his...canonization of recently slain Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, who was also an advocate of the decriminalization of ‘paedo sex,’ which was enough to scare off that other member of the Fortuyn fan club Rod Dreher.

“Think what you want about NAMBLA and ‘NAMBLA supporters.’ Just make sure to include them all.”

I couldn’t have said that better myself. I couldn’t have said that better if someone had fed me the lines to do so. But that’s why I sometimes defer to the great ones.
Raines Watch? Or Reuters Watch?

So Andy’s all giddy with his latest “Raines Watch,” the one where he leads readers into thinking the New York Times is out of control because headlines about the third-quarter report on gross domestic product by the Associated Press and the Washington Post made note of the economy’s strength, while the New York Times headline said the economy expanded at a rate lower than economists had expected.

Andy apparently loved this piece so much it made its way into “The Weekly Dish,” his column published in the Washington Times today.

The problem is, and there’s always a problem, isn’t there?, the offending headline was written by Reuters, the news service that was the source of the article as anyone who actually looked at the story could see, plain as day.

And of course Sullivan neglected to link to two other Reuters stories published at the Times web site under headlines that read “Consumers Push Economic Growth Up” and “Economic Growth Up but Momentum Waning.”

You know, people fire interns for pulling shit like this.
Thursday, October 31, 2002
What Americans Think

The other night I forced myself through Andrew Sullivan’s New Republic cover piece, “Trash Pickup,” three skimpy pages that will keep every armchair psychologist in America, to say nothing of the professionals, busy for weeks.

The basic thrust of this collection of sentences is that the Brits, Andy excluded I suppose, are ruining everything here in the U.S., “once quite a civilized country,” by “dumbing-down” our culture (actually, our popular culture, though Andy--in a lapse that hearkens to, of all people, Susan Sontag, doesn’t make the distinction) through their “boorishness,” “brutishness,” and “brashness.”

Why The New Republic didn’t save the cover slot for an article about something we didn’t already know is a question for the ages, or at least for Peter Beinart.

That’s really all there is to it. I’m strangely proud to say I managed to stick with the piece until the bitter end, despite getting stuck in the third paragraph, where Andy spits out this hallucinatory observation:

“There are few things more dear to Americans than the notion of Britain (or, more accurately, England) as a halcyon place of tea, crumpets, and generations of aesthetes who went to tony private [sic] schools and know much of Shakespeare and Milton by heart. In this cranny of the American psyche, the English are eternally polite, classy, reliable fuddy-duddies.”

I don’t know a single American who thinks that. I don’t even know a single non-Brit who thinks that. Do you?
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
Twenty-Five Days and Counting

When I’m wrong, I’ll say I’m wrong.

I thought Andrew Sullivan’s column, “The Weekly Dish,” first appeared in the Washington Times on Friday, Oct. 18.

That’s not correct. Andy’s work began appearing in the Times on a regular basis on Oct. 4.

And so: I was wrong.

I wonder, then, even more than before, why it is that Andy still hasn’t delivered the good news to the readers of “The Daily Dish” over at

Why the silence?

Too humble? Nah. Too modest? Nah.

Ashamed? Embarrassed? Afraid?
Monday, October 28, 2002
Hirsute Ephebes

Diane E. of Letter From Gotham, too busy being a roadie for that “big druggy dyke,” Whitney Houston, obviously hasn’t been keeping up with Andy and his paeans to Androgel.

Diane, who attended the Hitchens & Sullivan show, well off-Broadway, the other night, says she was surprised to discover that Andy is not “a youthful, slender English ephebe,” but instead that he “resemble[s] a hirsute bodybuilder.” (Scroll down to “Orwell Panel.”)

“Youthful”? Girl, he’s what, at least 40 by now!

And “ephebe”? As I recall from Greek Lit classes in my prep school days, ephebes weren’t even really adults, they were teenagers. Diane, we’ve been kicking this dolt around for 15 years at least. Did you really think he set out to hector the world at age five?

If I were Andy, I would detect more than a little homophobia there. Oh, but wait, Diane is a full-fledged wing-nut in good standing, so she gets a pass.

“Slender”? Hey, there. Be careful! Are you calling Andy a girly man? He’s not going to like that!

Now “hirsute” (Andy said something recently about chest hair being “back in style.”) and “bodybuilder” (The Androgel…again), now that he’ll like, though I must say, sneaking in that resemblance remark was pretty good, I say old chap!

And as for drugs, check in with Andy for the 420 on that.
I Can Think of At Least One Thing

Jeebers, Andy, don’t just serve `em up to me on a platter!

MICROSOFT HELL: Is there anything more annoying/creepy/ugly than the MSN campaign with that guy who looks like Jeff Goldblum from the remake of The Fly? Did they coincide it with Halloween on purpose?”

At least try to make this challenging, please?
“I Love You, You Love Me,
We’re a Happy, But Non-Traditional,
Right-Wing Family”

Today is Defer to Others Day, I guess. As with TBogg on the matter of “Iraq is not Iraq” (below), I will defer to the great master, Neal Pollack, for today’s comment on the recent New York University Andrew Sullivan-Christopher Hitchens smooch-a-thon(g), an event that its participants would have you think actually had something to do with George Orwell. Pollack and I think not.
Iraq is Not Iraq
Say Anything About Looking Like a Duck...I’ll Slug Ya’

I’m going to let TBogg deal with this Andy’s whole “‘Iraq’ doesn’t really mean ‘Iraq’” thing--i.e., in Andy’s ill-chosen words, “We are not therefore at war with the country or people of Iraq; and by equating Saddam with Iraq, these so-called ‘peace-protestors’ are de facto parties to his vile propaganda, the notion that Iraq is Saddam and Saddam is Iraq.”:

I’m sure the people of Iraq will make this all important distinction that we are not really at war with them when the bombs start falling on Baghdad...unless, of course, they die in the ‘war-that-is-not-really-a-war,’ in which case the distinction will probably be lost for eternity. And if Saddam should retaliate against American cities, which he has shown no inkling of even attempting, I personally will rationalize this (body counts and all) and take solace in the fact that Saddam is really only at ‘war’ with George W. Bush, the unelected President.

If TBogg isn’t already on your list of daily stops, add it to the roll. TBogg uses a biting and refreshing sense of humor to add fun to the tedious task of taking Sullivan to task.
Friday, October 25, 2002
Yeah, Right

I am so saddened by news of the tragic death of Sen. Paul Wellstone, his wife, daughter, and campaign workers, that I am going to let this disingenuous bit of sarcasm--“This is terrible news for all of us who value diversity of opinion and liveliness of debate in a democratic society.”--pass without comment.
Poor Andy

Poor Andy. Poor, stupid Andy.

Jeebers, the guy doesn’t even know what “profiling” means.

Read today’s stunningly ignorant--even for Andy--post, The Fruits of Racial Profiling, and see for yourself.
Thursday, October 24, 2002
An Understatement and a Promise

This, from Andy, of course, is the understatement of the year: “I’ll be talking briefly tonight about how ‘Homage To Catalonia’ was inspiration for my own far less accomplished writing about the AIDS epidemic.” (Emphasis mine.)

Potential attendees should note that Andy said he will “be talking briefly.” Please hold him to that promise.
Anonymity Breeds Contempt

Andrew Sullivan sure knows a lot of unnamed and unnamable economists, doesn’t he?
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
A Match Made in Heaven

Andy Sullivan, philo-Semitic poseur, meet Jude Wanniski, anti-Semitic poseur. Andy, Jude. Jude, Andy.

I just know the two of you will get along handsomely.

You’re both demented ideologues, you both pound out screed after screed on your narrow obsessions, you both have fallen hard and fast from your previous positions of influence, and you both seem to have a thing for Paul Krugman.

Enjoy your lunch.
The Ever Vigilant Andy

It seems Andy is no longer content skimming only the New York Times in his endless search for Fifth Columnists.

Andy has now set his sites wider, broader, deeper, delving, for the second time in as many weeks, into that most influential of media bastions: student newspapers at Ivy League schools.

Last week it was the Yale Daily News, from the online comments section no less.

Today it’s the Daily Pennsylvanian.

Good God, he must have an awful lot of free time on his hands to have added these papers to his daily reading list.

He is reading them himself, isn’t he? I can’t say I’ve seen him give credit to any of his readers, or to the papers themselves, for drawing his attention to these stray pieces of obscure apostasy.
Reed Irvine is Pissed

Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media is pissed.

In an alert to members (and other interested parties) sent this afternoon, Irvine and his colleague Cliff Kincaid note with ire that the Washington Times, which bills itself as “America’s Newspaper” despite the fact that its circulation is a small fraction of that which would warrant billing as “Washington’s Newspaper,” “endorses sleaze.”

What has Irvine and Kincaid all worked up?

News, as noted below, that Andrew Sullivan, described by AIM as “an HIV-positive homosexual who supports gay marriage…who is often presented as a conservative homosexual,” has joined the ranks of regular columnists at the Times.

Irvine and Kincaid are so P.O.’d they go so far as to mention that kind of embarrassing incident from Sullivan’s personal life a while back, thus trafficking in a matter that various conservative bloggers this week would have us think is the sole province of “left-wing homophobes.”
Frankly, I’d Rather Starve

Oh, the long and sad demise of a once-bright star.

First it was Front Page Magazine, the dumping ground for second-rate has-been ideologues.

Now it’s on to the Washington Times, the dumping ground for second-rate has-been lunatics.

Andy, we hardly knew ye.
Monday, October 21, 2002
A Better Question: How Dumb Are Certain Brits?

Man, the guy just steps into it, doesn’t he?

Among today’s most Andynian posts: “HOW DUMB ARE THE BRITS? They make Mary McGrory look informed. Barely any [sic] knows who’s in the cabinet; and only a quarter can recognize Saddam Hussein. A useful antidote to Anglophilia.”

And here I was thinking Andy was the world’s greatest antidote to Anglophilia.

But there’s more. Those experienced with Andy’s tricks of the trade have learned by now that it pays to read through to the article he links to, as more often than not Andy misstates what is actually written there, shamelessly misleads his readers into thinking it says something it doesn’t, or mistakenly interprets the plain text in front of his face.

In this particular case, I’m not even sure Andy actually read the article he’s promoting. Check it yourself and you will see that, on the subject of naming British cabinet members, Andy is as far off base as he usually is.

The article reads, in relevant part: “Almost as many people - 42% - could not name even one member of the British Cabinet.”

Duh. That means, one can fairly surmise, that 58% of those questioned could name at least one member of the cabinet. More than half is “barely any”?

Alas, the figure wasn’t explicitly stated in the article and instead required a quick calculation, thereby flying over Andy’s head completely.

Good God, this is third-grade math. Will someone please buy this man some flash cards?
Natural Home, Or Insane Asylum?

If the Republican Party is “a natural home” for gays, as Andy likes to say, does that hold true for Britain’s Conservative Party as well?
The Confessions of St. Sullivan

Today Sullivan writes, with evident and I believe genuine pain and emotion, “The people who told me I was a fool to stay in the church, to trust in its better nature, the people who have long viewed the Church as quite simply the enemy of gay people - I’m afraid they may have been right all along. I find myself, in the face of this inhumanity, unable to go to mass any more. I haven’t left the church in my head or my soul. But I can’t go right now. It’s too painful. I just pray the purge won’t actually happen. What else can I do?”

I’m inclined to agree.

Selfishly, though, I hope this means an end to those interminable and inscrutable theological essays in which Sully pretends he’s St. Augustine.

And I wonder whether Andy will ever come to feel this way about his beloved Republican Party?
The Tape Measure

Andy’s pulling out the tape measure yet again: “Another record: 245,000 unique visits last week. We might break a million this month.”

Yesterday The Rittenhouse Review nailed this one (along with much else): “While his site generates considerable traffic, it’s fair to ask how many visitors are stopping by for its sheer entertainment value.”
An Invitation

Writes Andy, “I’ll be on the road mid-week…On Thursday night, I’ll be in New York City, on a panel on Orwell at New York University at 7 pm….You’re all welcome, natch.”

Oh, hey, thanks, pal, but Thursday night is Androgel night here. I’ll be smearing vast quantities of God’s gift to the terminally insecure on my chest and frontispiece while catching up on the latest porn and making crank phone calls to Howie Raines’s house.

Maybe next time.
Deep End Alert

Late yesterday, under the dark cover of night, Randian Andy joined pal Mickey Kaus’s Ann Coulter Fan Club:

“A BLOG CHALLENGE: Here’s an idea. Maybe OxBlog could do it. Someone out there in blogland should take a look at Ann Coulter’s recent columns and Maureen Dowd’s. Using strict criteria - personal smears, rhetorical hyperbole, unprovable accusations of ill-will, bigotry (towards a class or race or group of people), unsubstantiated claims, and so on, see how the two stack up. It’s not worth criticizing Dowd any more. She’s beyond criticism. But it would be interesting to see how the prize columnist at the Times compares with a writer now deemed beyond the pale by large sections of the media. One [sic] your marks, get set ... I’ll link to the best.” (Emphasis added.)

“A writer now deemed beyond the pale by large sections of the media,” but not here at “The Daily Dish,” Andy Sullivan’s home for whining crybabies, oh, no! Here we like deranged lunatics, especially deranged conservative lunatics who trade in anti-gay and homophobic stereotypes for fun and profit.

I really think Andy should stop writing for his blog when he’s stoned.
Sunday, October 20, 2002
Left-Wing What?

Jesse Taylor of Pandagon has a great post up today about something called “left-wing homophobia,” a topic that is apparently swirling around somewhere out there but, suspecting the basic premise of the discussion is some right-wing lie or another, I’m not going to bother to look.

Anyway, regarding Andrew Sullivan, Taylor writes, among other prescient things: “Basically, you don’t strut out screaming to whomever will listen that ‘I’M A GAY CONSERVATIVE WHO LOVES AMERICA AND HATES LIBERALS!!!!!!!!’ and not expect to be called on every portion of that statement, especially when you couch your sexuality in explicitly political terms. When you make your sexuality a part of your political stance, then yes, your sexuality can be criticized politically.”

And this: “Sullivan is just as open to his preferred methods of discourse as anyone else is, those methods being severely half-assed ‘fact checking,’ insipid awards for ‘objectionable’ comments, bold reformations of reality to mirror his political beliefs, and boatloads of self-aggrandizing sophistry designed to make him seem as if he is the lynchpin of modern-day Western society. He is perhaps the most famous blogger online, and he gives everyone else who does it a reputation for error-ridden bloviating. It’s an insult to everyone else who actually puts two seconds of thought into this, and who can’t make a faltering career out of paranoia and loathing.” (Emphasis added.)

That, ladies and gentlemen, is what they call “dead on.”

And ya’ gotta’ love Taylor’s send off: “But, all things being equal, it’s the New York Times’ fault.”
On Self-Esteem

Andy yesterday approvingly quoted a portion of an essay by Howard Jacobson (whom he did not identify by name), published Friday in The Independent, calling it “an astonishing moment of clarity”:

“Here is our decadence: not the nightclubs, not the beaches and the sex and the drugs, but our incapacity to believe we have been wronged. Our lack of self-worth.”

Interesting, isn’t it, that this passage would meet with Andy’s approval?

The root of our problem is not the decadence of nightclubs, beaches, sex, and drugs, all of which Andy, like many of us, partakes and enjoys (though some of us are less conflicted about it than our better-known counterparts), it’s “our lack of self-worth,” our lack of self-esteem, if you will.

God knows we could all use a little more of that, right?

Jeebers, I ask again, Does this guy read his own stuff?
Unsigned Editorials

Another day, another opportunity to bitch and piss and moan about Howell Raines.

This time Andrew Sullivan is aghast that the New York Times editorial board employed the services of Joel S. Wit in preparing an editorial about the nuclear weapons program of North Korea.

For shame!

Maybe, if Andy is still allowed in the offices of The New Republic without adult supervision, he can check the files there and let us know how many of that magazine’s editorials, even during his own tenure as editor, were written, unsigned, by professors, scholars, and other experts who were not regular employees of TNR.

It’s a common practice in the industry and Andy knows this. He just won’t let his readers in on the secret.
Friday, October 18, 2002
Material Boy

In reference to Whitney Houston, Andrew Sullivan, apparently still counting pennies, today writes, “Yep, her song, ‘I Will Always Love You,’ was picked by Saddam as the theme song for his recent ‘referendum.’ I hope she got some royalties.” [Emphasis mine.]

It’s too bad Diane from Letter From Gotham beat Andy to the punch on this one.

Of course, Diane, a fan of Andy’s and the Upper West Side’s snarkiest shrew--a title she took by default after Midge Decter moved to the East Side--couldn’t resist giving it her own special twist, referring to Houston as “just a big druggy dyke.”

Somehow, I think, Andy would approve.
Thursday, October 17, 2002
Words That Will Soon Be Forgotten

Andrew Sullivan, thoroughly discredited geo-political and military strategist: “WORDS TO REMEMBER: ‘North Korea cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb. We have to be very firm about it.’ - Bill Clinton, ‘Meet the Press,’ Nov. 7, 1993.”

I guess either the North Koreans got away with something that the U.S. didn’t want them to, not the first time that has happened in American history, or, hey, what the hell, we should have invaded North Korea in October 1996 or October 2000, or--hey, how about this--October 2001! George Churchill Bush would have saved us!

Oh well, that time has passed, but let’s all get ready. Let’s send those conscripts who work for Andy to the Korean peninsula and fix that up right now. (And Andy, by the way, that’s peninsula, not penisula.)
You Won’t See Andy Quoting This

Here’s a real scorcher from the same Dan Savage Andy cites today that you won’t see quoted over at

“The AIDS crisis ended in 1996. What we’re facing now is a stupidity crisis among some gay men and a cowardice crisis among AIDS organizations (which are largely staffed by gay men). Isn’t it ironic that AIDS organizations are silent...while a sub-group of gay men re-create the communal septic tank culture of the late 1970s? And why not? Many gay men believe that someone else will pay for their AIDS drugs and go to the walk while they pay for their party drugs and go to the baths.

“Don’t assume, boys. What 9/11 did was remind the world just what a blow-from-the-blue looks like. Those infected with HIV--be they barebackers or bug chasers or just unlucky saps who naively believed that ‘low risk’ meant no risk--were quickly burning through what was left of the stores of sympathy for people with HIV before 9/11.

“Post-9/11, all bets are off. The difference between being broadsided [as occurred when AIDS first emerged] and being stupid has been thrown into high relief. Our stupidity isn’t going to bring people to the AIDS Walk. It’s going to drive them to the next Red Cross fundraiser.

“On 9/11, people were reminded why they cared so much about people with AIDS in the first place. Something terrible had happened to innocent people, people going about their daily lives, unaware that seemingly innocent actions were leading them toward a horrifying and gruesome tragedy.

“We can’t make that claim about AIDS anymore--not with a straight face, anyway. And even if we could, who would believe us?”
Wednesday, October 16, 2002
Andrew Sullivan: Semi-Exonerated

Well knock me over with a peacock feather. Andrew Sullivan tonight publicly noted for the record that yes, Jim Romenesko indeed published a link to the Rocky Mountain News story about the New York Times that the steroidal Brit was certain the media observer would suppress in the interest of promoting his left-wing agenda.

“HE LINKED! It turns out Jim Romenesko actually linked to a piece criticizing the newly leftward spin of the New York Times. I under-estimated [sic] him. Let me know the next time he does, will you?”

Of course, I have to point out that Sullivan doesn’t use the word “correction” anywhere in his latest post on the subject, let alone the word “apology” or any of its various forms.

Nor does he mention the fact that Romenesko posted the link in question yesterday, an oversight on Sullivan’s part that could leave his ideologically sheltered readers with the impression Romenesko acted in response to Sullivan’s misleading initial post.

Oh, and don’t worry, Sully, I’ll let you know the next time Romenesko posts to an article like this one. Of course, you could always find that out for yourself by checking his site before you publish one more of your endless series of lies.

For now, at least, let’s all call Andy “semi-exonerated.”
Who Knew?

Hey, who knew?

Micah Holmquist, “blogger,” today was identified by patriot Adam Stevens on Free Republic as an “anti-American leftist” who has “declared war on America,” and a “traitor” who should be “looked into to see if [he is] leading the treasonous anti-war movement.”

According to Stevens, “[I]f [Holmquist is] leading the anti-American movements [sic] attempt to weaken this country by attacking our military as many of htem [sic] probably are then [he] should be treated as harshly as possible.”

Well, putting aside all that, at least for now, who knew this? It turns out Micah Holmquist is a pretty darn funny guy.

Here he is on Topic #1 here at Smarter Andrew Sullivan, namely, Andrew Sullivan:

“Someone should explain to Andrew Sullivan that the world does not consist of one good team and one bad team. But if it did, Sullivan would make a pretty good fan of the good team and would attend every game, scream at the top of his lungs and wave one of those foam number one hands in the air. He might even paint his face.”

Now that’s pretty good. Welcome to the club, Micah. Oh, and keep me up to date on that War on America thing.
This is Hilarious

Andrew Sullivan is trying to whip up some more anti-New York Times hysteria today:

“A REPORTING NOSE-DIVE: So says yet another critical piece about the Times’ new management. Don’t expect Romenesko to link.”

You know, you can read that little doodle and think to yourself, “Damn that liberal media! You go, Andy!”

Or, “Screw Romenesko, that Rainesian!”

Or, “Gee, I’ve always been skeptical about Sullivan’s Times bashing, but maybe he’s on to something here.”

Well, as they say, “Don’t go there.”

Why not? Because as Atrios of Eschaton reported this morning, Jim Romenesko published a link to the Rocky Mountain News story cited by Sullivan today, yesterday.

I’ll be checking in with periodically today looking for an apology, a correction, a retraction, or, if anything, the sudden disappearance of his groundless sneer. I’ll keep you posted.
Tuesday, October 15, 2002
Blessed By His Holiness

Has anyone else noticed that Randian Andy has been slowly parsing out slips of recognition to other bloggers in recent weeks?

It’s all very subtle, mind you: Just a quick notice here, a passing mention there, a casual off-the-cuff remark in a hidden parenthetical where you least expect it.

Such concessions that indeed there are others engaged in this endeavor, most of them not repeat failures in the field of journalism and most of them far more capable than he, would have been unthinkable only three months ago.

What has changed? Has blogging changed? Has our language changed? Has President Bush changed? Has Sully changed? Have I changed? Have we not all changed, as Peggy Noonan has so brilliantly explained in the profound little gems she produces for the Wall Street Journal at God’s know what rate per word while sitting on her fat ass in some tacky Long Island suburb?

It matters not.

What matters is that Sully is scared shitless.

Sullivan’s crude methods, dishonesty, psychotic obsessions, persistent errors, pathetic smears, caustic barbs, personal attacks, ad hominem tirades, smug self-righteousness, blatant immaturity, and self-centered fantasies have been and continue to be exposed by a new generation of bloggers, independent minds who don’t need or care for the approval of Testosterone Man and The Mickster, people who see Gap Boy and The Welfare Queen for what they really are: troglodytes from a bygone era that no respectable editor will touch for fear of the taint of their oversized egos and disreputable natures.

Sully needs allies right now and this doling out of just so many chits will prove to be of inestimable value. The blogosphere is merciless, in part because the vast majority of those contributing to it feel no need to kiss up to this or that editor or curry favor with this or that politician. What do bloggers care if Martin Peretz thinks they’re anti-Semites or Tom DeLay thinks they’re communists?

As his reputation crumbles under the harsh glare of a thousand new critics, each with their own immediate outlets for publicizing his foibles, Sully can’t afford not to have a reliable cheering section. Once “blessed” by his holiness, some bloggers, I suspect, will withhold criticism and elect to defend the throne. This is Sully’s new base and I assure you, he will demand unquestioning loyalty from it.

It’s been a tough day for our pal Andy, what with everything we’ve discussed here already, and then yet another well-deserved parody from Neal Pollack.

You know, I almost feel sorry for Sully.

{ { { Laughter from the audience } } }

O.K., O.K., not sorry, exactly. Maybe, badly?

{ { { Laughter from the audience } } }

Aw, come on, people, he’s pathetic!

{ { { WILD APPLAUSE } } }

Have you no hearts whatsoever?!

{ { { DELIRIUM } } }
Pig Pile on Sullivan

If these bloggers keep this up, SullyWatch and I are going to lose our franchises. The latest to join today’s pig pile on Andrew Sullivan: Eschaton.

Leah, one of Eschaton’s readers, I presume, chimes in with an adept take down of Sully’s “Idiocy of the Week,” published by Salon today.

The “money quote”: “What struck me, though, once again, at the heart of a right-wing idiocy, that right-wing inability to get irony, or perhaps its a right-wing refusal to acknowledge leftwing irony, or maybe they really are that dumb, or maybe there's some kind of anti-irony inoculation we just don't know about. Cause if Andy had gotten it, writing that column would have been a whole lot harder.”

No offense intended, of course, since I love people like Leah, but I’ll bet she didn’t even break a sweat dissecting that piece of drool.
Asking for the Impossible

Matthew Yglesias is also giving Sullivan a good working over today, though setting the bar unusually high by asking the dopey pundit, in the essay’s title, to “Think again.” Yeah, right. As if.

Yglesias points out that Sully seems to be having difficulty distinguishing between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and Hezbollah. It’s not the first time he’s been confused.
Somerby Bitch Slaps Sully

The Daily Howler is all over Andrew Sullivan’s ass today. Damn, that Bob Somerby is harsh: today Somerby calls Sullivan “Smear Boy.”

Here’s what Sully would call “the money quote”:

“This slimy man shows no sign of stopping—all who stand in his way must be smeared. Andrew Sullivan keeps emerging as one of the nastiest characters in our public discourse. There’s nothing so stupid that Smear Boy won’t say it; no insinuation so slimy he won’t toss it out. It’s amazing to think that so ugly a man was editor of one of our great publications. Socrates warned about people like this. Why, oh why, does the insider press corps keep taking this small man so seriously?”

Ah, a question for the ages.

Still not finished for the day, Somerby moves headstrong into a new paragraph, this one a discussion of Sully’s fit over the Montana hairdresser ad with the lead-in: “ONE OF THE STUPIDEST MEN OF OUR TIME.”

It does get any clearer than that. Somerby goes on: “Sullivan’s stupidity is never-ending, generally serving as a pretext for misstatements against those he opposes.”

Are we done yet? Nope, still more from Somerby.

“GOOFUS STRIKES AGAIN,” begins a quick take on Sully’s weekly contribution to Salon, his smirky and often wrong, “Idiocy of the Week.”

It’s worth reading on your own. Hey, how often do you get to read a paragraph that ends, “The actual idiocy involved in this piece? The fact that Salon stooped to print it.”

Actually, come to think about it, I’ll bet we’ll be hearing that quite a lot from now on.
Monday, October 14, 2002
Crazy Andy

Andrew Sullivan really is losing it.

Today he’s on some kind of demented tear, thinking he--and he alone--has exposed iron-clad proof of pervasive anti-Semitism at one of “the most elite universities.”

He does so in response to the flimsiest of evidence--a few comments posted in reaction to a recent column in the Yale Daily News--presuming, as noted in the quote below, that the comments simply must have come from within the Yale community.

Sullivan: “Yes, I know all sorts of loonies can log on and post things on a free-floating comment board, and there’s no way to know who’s behind some of the comments. But who would be reading the Yale Daily News so closely in the first place? Anyway, make your own mind up by clicking on the comment section.”

This begs the question, Was Sullivan himself reading the Yale Daily News this closely? Sullivan starts his post by saying, “Reading through the Yale Daily News can be a truly eye-opening experience,” which implies, but does not state explicitly, that he found the article on his own.

If so, why? He didn’t go to school there. He doesn’t teach there. His boyfriend doesn’t teach there.

Was he on a special mission? Was he rooting out academic anti-Semitism? Was he searching for Fifth Columnists? Trolling for prospective interns?

Or did someone send the article to Sullivan? And if so, why not say so? And why not identify the person who sent it?

Another question arises in reading the comments, some of which are indeed pretty lame, Why did the great humanitarian choose to overlook this observation?:

erin go bleck...
Posted at: 10/10/02 6:31:48 AM
Posted by: Shem (as entered by poster)

My grandparents will roll over in their graves when they catch wind of what I am about to say, but the truth is you shouldn't have expected so much of Ms. Robinson---after all she is from the ethnic group that created and popularized modern terrorism. They, the Irish, are a pack of shrill self-righteous begrudgers, who seek to deride and bring low anyone who does them better. For this reason they hate America---whom they see as another England--- and they romanticize Islamo-fascism, which reminds them of their own fanatical blood-lust. In the twisted Irish view of the world, Israel is identified with Orangemen, the client of Anglo-America, and Israelis are thus seen as deserving of indiscriminate slaughter, PLO-IRA style. Like the Germans and the French, who wish to sacrifice Israel to absolve their guilt for the holocaust, the Irish want to legitimize the long series of cruel, heinous and pointless atrocities perpetrated by their own nationalists in order to end the "occupation" of the north. By depicting the Palestinians as holy victims and ignoring their vile terrorist acts Irish politicians like Robinson are indirectly suggesting that the decades of IRA butchery were somehow justified. Too bad you did not call her on this. That sanctimonious harpy has some nerve coming over here and playing high and mighty when a murderous villan [sic] like Gerry Adams---no better than Arafat---still walks free in her own part of the world. --# --

This comment, as any halfway intelligent person can immediately tell, is filled with untruths, inaccuracies, ignorance, prejudice, bigotry, hate, bile, you name it. It is also an obvious fraud. No one, and I mean no one, whose grandparents came from Ireland talks like this. So with this post being a fraud, I have no reason to think the others aren’t defective as well.

More importantly, this isn’t the first time Sullivan has passed up an opportunity to criticize virulent anti-Irish sentiment, and I’m sure it won’t be the last. Makes you wonder how much of that discredited and wholly unwarranted British condescension toward its better neighbor is still flowing in those veins.
Saturday, October 12, 2002
Another Day, Another Smear

Poor Andy, he simply can’t talk about the Nobel Peace Prize, given this year to President Jimmy Carter. “It’s too predictable, too depressing and too easy,” he wails.

But rather than not “blog” about the matter, as promised, Sullivan simply issues yet another wholly unwarranted and unsubstantiated smear, the ugly and ignorant reflex reaction that has become his trademark: “All I can say is: some of the nastiest and most vicious dictators in the world must be very happy right now. Their best buddy is a hero.”

How sad that the only thing one of this nation’s leading “conservative intellectuals” can think to do is drop a steaming turd on the good name and reputation of a man of such unparalleled decency, generosity, and accomplishment.

It has come to this, my friends.
Friday, October 11, 2002
The Personals

Quite a happenstance over at the L.A. Times today: The subject of Norah Vincent’s latest column is…the personal ads.

I’ll give her this: It’s one of her better-written articles. It’s organized, coherent, stripped of extraneous modifiers, and it flows well, with a good cadence and a respectful and not condescending tone.

Personal ads, of course, are ground that has been covered before, innumerable times, and while Vincent’s take on the subject doesn’t heave with profundity, to be fair, the Times doesn’t give her many words to work with. I say: Flesh it out some more, grrrl.

Reading the piece in its entirety, however, one also comes to admire either the stout bravery or the irrepressible sense of humor that it would seem governs her friendships.

For example, read this: “Placing or answering a personal ad used to be a cause for shame. If you did it, you did it on the sly and lied about it….The stigma surrounding such ads was justified. But now that stigma is gone, or so the proliferation of high-tech personals on the Web would seem to suggest, and that has led to the kind of debased and panting free-for-all that makes good old-fashioned promiscuity look quaint.”

Uh, um, O.K., Norah. Meeting anyone in particular for brunch on Sunday?

She continues: “Personal ads are infinitely more sophisticated than they used to be. Most now come with color pictures, detailed profiles and instant messaging capabilities. And people are placing them in far greater numbers. What’s more, they’re doing so with exhibitionistic abandon, consenting to have their mugs and foibles beamed around the globe....”

Jeebers, that hits pretty close to certain homes, don’t you think?

“Each day, some new ripe and marketable face appears, complete with a quirky teaser dripping with hip innuendo, until you begin to wonder whatever happened to the joys of anonymity.”

Sing out, sister!

And finally: “Some real and lasting encounters happen [through web-based personals] but with the same frequency as they happen in real life: rarely. Blanketing the Internet with your psychosexual resume may get you more dates, but it isn’t going to change the brutal odds of true love.”

Let alone love and marriage.
Thursday, October 10, 2002
Apology Watch: Continued

Still no apology from Andrew Sullivan to Rachel L. Swarns and the New York Times for his despicable misrepresentation of her outstanding coverage of the horrific situation in Zimbabwe and the role played therein by its detestable leader, Robert Mugabe. (Kudos once more and again to Ted Barlow for his work on this issue.)
Dabbling in Double Standards

I’m beginning to wonder whether Andrew Sullivan reads his own writing. If he doesn’t, who could blame him, after all?

Surely you noticed today that Andy’s in yet another snit about “the Democrats,” the party to whom he owes his everything, down to and including his comfortable and at times renegade “out” lifestyle, this time for “playing on the cheesiest anti-gay imagery.”

All of a sudden, cheesy anti-gay imagery makes Sullivan angry.

That’s funny, since just last week Sullivan gave Florida Governor Jeb Bush a sportsmanlike “bye” on his “juicy details” remark, saying, with either a straight face or his fingers crossed, I’m not sure which, “Here’s what I make of it. Bush is pandering to a bunch of good ol’ boys whom he assumes are homophobes. I don’t believe Bush is a homophobe himself - but that only makes the pandering worse. I’d love to see him crack the same joke in the same room as Mary Cheney, the vice-president’s daughter. Maybe that would help him realize what a know-nothing bigot he sounds like. He still doesn’t get it, does he?”

No, Jeb Bush doesn’t get it, Andy, and you don’t either.

“I don’t believe Bush is a homophobe himself,” Sullivan says.

On what grounds does he base this belief? What has Gov. Bush done during his term in office or in his private life that would lead to this conclusion? Is he leading the effort to allow gay men and lesbians to adopt children in Florida? Was he an earnest and vocal opponent of the proposition to repeal the Miami-Dade equal protection ordinance? Has he implemented or advocated statewide equal rights laws or measures for gays and lesbians?

To ask these questions is to answer them.

Sullivan had the opportunity to knock Jeb’s standing down a notch or two, and he passed. Worse, he passed the buck to Mary Cheney, a move that, I hate to say it, has the ring of a schoolyard wuss seeking the protection of his tomboy friend.

Sullivan says Bush was “pandering.” I say Sullivan is ass-kissing.
Fun With Sully

I’ve been “on the coast” as they say, so blogging has been erratic this week.

However, to maintain your fix, stop by some of my favorite sites, David E’s Fablog, T-Bogg, Max Sawicky, Eschaton, Neal Pollack, The Daily Howler, and, of course, SullyWatch.
Wednesday, October 09, 2002
Now I Get It

I don’t know why it took me so long, but I finally figured out the underlying cause of Andrew Sullivan’s sycophantic take on all things Bush-ist: Andy needs a job!

With his freelance income, in his own words, declining, I get the feeling that Sullivan is bucking for a job as a speechwriter in the W. White House.

Hey, it’s not that far-fetched. Just last week he was practically begging to be cast in an Apple Computer advertisement.
Saturday, October 05, 2002
For the Record

Just for the record, in case we want to look it up later and can’t find it at the Q.E. II, the latest target of The Useless Idiot’s hyper-vigilant gaze: Nicholas Kristof of--big surprise--the New York Times, as in, “Nick Kristof goes to Baghdad and finds people ready to attack the U.S. Quelle surprise! In a police state where the tiniest dissent on the tiniest matter can have you disappeared and tortured, Kristof deduces no support for a U.S. invasion. Let’s check in and see what happens if we do invade, shall we? We have long memories in the blogosphere, Nick. And little pity.”
Friday, October 04, 2002
How About Ayn Rand Next Time?

Thank God! The stupid charade that Andrew Sullivan calls his “Book Club” is finally done with sociopath Michael Ledeen and his ridiculous and thoroughly unscholarly new work, The War Against the Terror Masters, a book to which the persistently sycophantic Sullivan provided an link in order to fill his increasingly thin wallet.

Whatever will be Gap-Boy’s next choice?

I have a nomination!

How about Atlas Shrugged?

Yes, Atlas Shrugged, that pathetic excuse for a novel by the homophobic “philosopher” and, even more laughably, purported “economist,” Ayn Rand.

Yes, the same Ayn Rand that half your friends thought was a genius during their sophomore year, friends who, for the most part, later realized was just a crank with an insatiable appetite for young men.

Yes, Atlas Shrugged, the novel with the one-dimensional characters, stilted dialogue, forced sex scenes (And I mean that!), and ludicrous imagery.

Yes, the novel with the entirely “skippable” final 300 pages.

Atlas Shrugged would make a completely appropriate choice for Sullivan and his similarly small-minded minions, don’t you think?
Sullivan Sticks With Swarns Smear

Andrew Sullivan today applauds New York Times columnist Paul Krugman for--and not exactly in these words--conceding that one of his recent columns relied on an e-mail thought to have been written and sent by Secretary of the Army Thomas White (formerly of Enron Corp.), and previously published, apparently unvetted, by Salon, the online magazine that employs the notoriously unreliable Sullivan.

“[G]ood for him,” writes Gap-Boy, the Wannabe Apple Polisher. “Maybe he’ll temper his anti-Bush dyspepsia in future. Yeah, right.”

And maybe some day Sullivan will apologize for groundlessly smearing the outstanding work of New York Times reporter Rachel L. Swarns, a lone voice in the sad and sorry wilderness that constitutes the American media today, the same Swarns whose coverage of the corrupt and murderous regime of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe is unparalleled and, in my opinion, likely to garner, and is most worthy of garnering, a Pulitzer Prize nomination.

Yeah, as if.
The World Revolves Around ME, Dammit!

“Am I complaining as a relatively public switcher from p.c.s to a Mac? Not entirely. I’m sure all sorts of computers break down like this (although I never had a p.c. that did). Maybe it was the dank air in Provincetown that did it in; or my ceaseless use of iTunes. But it’s a little embarrassing for Apple to have such a high-profile ‘switch’ ad campaign going on and have one of their most enthusiastic switchers see his computer collapse from mechanical problems within a few months.” -- Andrew Sullivan

It is?

Says who?

Oh, that’s right. Sullivan says so.

Sounds like Gap-Boy is miffed about being passed over for another chance at a career in advertising.

Blog Archive