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.
Tuesday, October 01, 2002
It Goes Way Back

Andrew Sullivan’s official site “Biography” is an uncredited piece that could well be an autobiographical sketch, titled “Life of Andrew.” Reading it with great admiration today, this obscure fact jumped off the screen:

”In the summer of 1986, he applied for internships at the New York Times, the National Review, and The New Republic. The New Republic accepted him, and he wrote his first article for the magazine on the cult of bodybuilding.”

Does this mean the New York Times rejected Sullivan 16 years ago?

And was that essay on “the cult of bodybuilding” a case of self-prophecy or what?
Rainsers Everywhere!

I can hear the anguished cries coming from Adams-Morgan:

The Rainsers are everywhere! They’ve even taken over The Guardian. The Guardian! Already filled to overflowing with Laborites, Stalinists, Maoists, Guevarists, traitors, anti-Semites, fifth columnists, and self-hating intellectuals of the Susan Sontag variety, and now The Guardian is teeming with Rainsers!

Everyone is against me! I’ve never felt more alone! (Except, of course, when I’m hanging out with my right-wing beer-bellied buddies.)

Check this out! The Guardian didn’t include my site--my pioneering, groundbreaking, one-trick-pony weblog--in its list of the best British blogs!

It’s a disgrace! A sham! A farce! A tragedy! O, the humanity!

And look at the list of judges! Long-time Stalinist Anita Roddick at the top of the list!

I’m the best British blogger, damn it!

Oh, wait, I’m an American now. Sort of.
Another Total

Andrew Sullivan must have even less freelance work than anyone would guess. Today he has counted the number of times Senator Robert Toricelli used the word “I” in the campaign withdrawal speech he made yesterday.

Well, I have a little downtime at work today, so here’s another grand total: 23.

That’s the number of times Randian Andy uses the words “I”, “me”, or “my” on his home page today.
Narcissus Speaks

Have you ever wished the world revolved around you?

Have you ever thought the world revolved around you?

Andrew Sullivan apparently does:

“THAT BAD TIMES LINK: Funny how that page I linked to on the New York Times forum on Maureen Dowd mysteriously disappeared shortly after I put it up. But I think it’s reappeared now here. I’ve no idea why. It doesn't look like my mistake.”

Blog Archive