Smarter Andrew Sullivan

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.

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.

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.

Mixing Mediocrities

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

Really?

I wonder what that makes Harkness Fellows.

Clueless

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 soupçon” 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?