PDA

View Full Version : Wieseltier Takes Down Andrew Sullivan


nikkibong
02-24-2009, 03:25 PM
Damn, this (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=cfb679ee-2ba7-4695-b4f0-72df0e186543) feels good. Here, in the parlance of Mr. Sullivan, is the "money quote:"

Sullivan's outrage at my failure of transcription disguises a problem. It is that he is a hero-worshipper, but all his heroes do not go together. He reveres Reagan and he reveres Obama. That is to say, he admires conceptions of government that contradict each other.

No, no, no, Leon, don't you see? Andrew is a true conservative! If he believes it, it is automatically the conservative position!

To Andrew's liberal admirers, I suggest you go back to the Daily Dish archives from 2001/2003/2004. His thuggish hawkishness from the time was breathtaking. Don't forget he accused us of planning to mount a fifth column!

Why anyone respects this clown is beyond me. I cannot believe a magazine as serious as the Atlantic hosts his blog. Or perhaps the "face of the day" is just too stimulating to pass up?

bjkeefe
02-24-2009, 04:40 PM
To Andrew's liberal admirers, I suggest you go back to the Daily Dish archives from 2001/2003/2004. His thuggish hawkishness from the time was breathtaking. Don't forget he accused us of planning to mount a fifth column!

Why anyone respects this clown is beyond me. I cannot believe a magazine as serious as the Atlantic hosts his blog. Or perhaps the "face of the day" is just too stimulating to pass up?

As one of Andrew's liberal admirers, I'll say that I am (1) aware of his past work and stances, (2) appreciative that he changed his views and apologized so handsomely (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/148) for what he had said earlier, (3) respectful without being reverent of him; i.e., I don't accept or agree with everything he says, (4) willing to believe anyone who posts 200 entries a week is going to make mistakes, (5) as much entertained as informed, (6) also happy for all the links and other writers he introduces me to, and (7) overall, delighted by his wit, intelligence, breadth, and find his mercurial nature engaging, if sometimes infuriating.

Oh, and (8) thrilled that someone who believes in God takes such a harsh view of the Christianists.

As to the Atlantic and its supposed standards, I have two words for you: Megan McArdle.

graz
02-24-2009, 05:44 PM
As one of Andrew's liberal admirers, I'll say that I am (1) aware of his past work and stances, (2) appreciative that he changed his views and apologized so handsomely (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/148) for what he had said earlier, (3) respectful without being reverent of him; i.e., I don't accept or agree with everything he says, (4) willing to believe anyone who posts 200 entries a week is going to make mistakes, (5) as much entertained as informed, (6) also happy for all the links and other writers he introduces me to, and (7) overall, delighted by his wit, intelligence, breadth, and find his mercurial nature engaging, if sometimes infuriating.

Oh, and (8) thrilled that someone who believes in God takes such a harsh view of the Christianists.

As to the Atlantic and its supposed standards, I have two words for you: Megan McArdle.

Once again, Brendan articulates my answer to a question better and quicker than I ever could. But I keep hope alive!

An example of the reason why I find Sullivan interesting, is that he blogs about stuff I wonder about:
Such as the reason for the continued popularity of Mickey Kaus?

Exhibit A:
In 2001, Mickey Kaus's blog became devoted almost entirely to insinuating that Gary Condit was a murderer. Among the many, many sentences Mickey wrote on the subject - largely mocking any and all who questioned Condit's guilt - was the following:

Kausfiles' goal is to have no unpublished thoughts on the Chandra Levy story.

But since Condit was cleared, Kausfiles' thoughts are unaccountably private.

bjkeefe
02-24-2009, 07:16 PM
Once again, Brendan articulates my answer to a question better and quicker than I ever could. But I keep hope alive!

An example of the reason why I find Sullivan interesting, is that he blogs about stuff I wonder about:
Such as the reason for the continued popularity of Mickey Kaus?

Exhibit A:
In 2001, Mickey Kaus's blog became devoted almost entirely to insinuating that Gary Condit was a murderer. Among the many, many sentences Mickey wrote on the subject - largely mocking any and all who questioned Condit's guilt - was the following:

Kausfiles' goal is to have no unpublished thoughts on the Chandra Levy story.

But since Condit was cleared, Kausfiles' thoughts are unaccountably private.

Who needs to be quick off the draw when you come up with finds like that?

That's a major league Oh, snap!

Thanks for passing it along.

claymisher
02-25-2009, 02:51 AM
Sullivan is a weird dude. I think more than anything he's gullible. He fell for the Iraq adventure, he fell for that nice G.W. Bush, he fell for Ron Paul, etc. He fell for The Bell Curve. Now he's dancing with the Austrian cultists.

Then there are those awful awards, which are a holdover from his 9/11 witchhunt days. Plus the Krugman hatred: "I have long found Paul Krugman an insufferably pompous, shrill, Bush-bashing pseudo-populist". At least he gave shrill to The Order of the Shrill.

I'm reminded of a comment on DeLong's site:


Hoisted from Comments on "A Proposed Pecking Order for Honest Conservatives": A couple of points about Andy Sullivan:

I read him frequently he has improved, and perhaps enough to be counted an Honest Conservative but he is a lagging Truth-Teller, not a leading Truth-Teller. He eventually gets to the truth, but only after a year or two of sliming, denouncing, and ridiculing the leading Truth-Tellers so my main motivation for reading him is that disreputable pleasure known as Conversion Porn...

bjkeefe
02-25-2009, 04:30 AM
Sullivan is a weird dude. I think more than anything he's gullible. He fell for the Iraq adventure, he fell for that nice G.W. Bush, he fell for Ron Paul, etc. He fell for The Bell Curve. Now he's dancing with the Austrian cultists.

Then there are those awful awards, which are a holdover from his 9/11 witchhunt days. Plus the Krugman hatred: "I have long found Paul Krugman an insufferably pompous, shrill, Bush-bashing pseudo-populist". At least he gave shrill to The Order of the Shrill.

I'm reminded of a comment on DeLong's site:

Agree about Iraq and Bush. Don't remember him on The Bell Curve or Ron Paul, although the latter surprises me. Not to remember, I mean -- I was reading him regularly before Paul came to prominence.

I won't quibble about that, though. There is something to your charge -- that's what I meant by calling him mercurial in my last. Seems like everything with him is the worst ever or the best ever for about two weeks (Iraq/Bush, unfortunately, longer.) I also suspect he sometimes just tosses stuff out there to stir up the pot, or to air an idea out, or to show that he's edgy and/or intellectually pure enough to consider an idea that's emotionally distasteful. Or to use it as a cudgel, say, in the case of Paul versus every other guy running for the GOP nomination. Or, as I said earlier, if you post 200 times a week, odds are certain you're gonna say some dumb stuff.

"Lagging truth-teller" is a good line, and it may have the added advantage of being true. On the other hand, at least he gets there eventually, right? Compare Sullivan to that tiresome bunch at The Corner, still insisting that George W. Bush was a good president. I'd also say that when he eventually gets to the right place, his passion is rarely matched.

I also think he's sometimes ahead of the curve. He was the first self-described conservative I was aware of to come out strongly against Sarah Palin, for example. At a time when the MSM was still gushing over her, too. And while he took heat for fixating on the whose baby is it, really? question, I kind of liked that as a counterexample to all the craziness being hurled by the Cult of the COLB at Obama.

And speaking of Obama, he was ahead of the (right-leaning) pack on that one, too.

Maybe I'm being too charitable, but for all the reasons I listed before, I like him. And, to repeat for emphasis, I don't accept or agree with everything he says. I'll make no excuse for his being wrong about Krugman, for example.

P.S. As to the awards: you're right about some of them. A commenter (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-far-are-we-from-peak-wingnut-again.html) on my blog just observed that specifically about the von Hoffman Award. I still think most of them work, though. In fact, looking at the list (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/awards.html), I'd say all the rest still do. Arguably, Yglesias doesn't earn his eponymous award so much anymore, and I suppose one could prefer a different name than Moore for that one. But hey, if we can give out peace prizes named after the inventor of dynamite ...

nikkibong
02-25-2009, 04:27 PM
Then there are those awful awards,

The worst of these has got to be the Poseur Alert. Whenever prose is too sophisticated for Simple Sullivan to comprehend, he attacks the writer as a 'poseur.' This from a person, who in a hilarious display of both solipsism and false modesty, claims to be partially responsible for the Iraq War.

bjkeefe
02-28-2009, 03:50 PM
And Sullivan has the last laugh, and cattily (and I'm a total cat person, so that's a good thing) serves notice of it in an unrelated post (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/02/the-wapos-high.html#more):

But more interesting: if you define MSM reponse to factual errors by, say, ten days (let's call the measurement a Wieseltier (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/02/more-important.html)), then the WaPo took 0.9 of Wieseltier to respond to an obvious error.

Andrew, FTW.

nikkibong
03-09-2009, 02:52 PM
SULLIVAN SELF IMPORTANCE WATCH:

"But there are several factual errors, e.g. that I endorsed Bush in 2004, which I famously didn't,"

(italics mine)

bjkeefe
03-09-2009, 07:52 PM
SULLIVAN SELF IMPORTANCE WATCH:

"But there are several factual errors, e.g. that I endorsed Bush in 2004, which I famously didn't,"

(italics mine)

Play fair. Supply a link when you're quoting someone.

nikkibong
03-10-2009, 01:00 AM
sorry, forgot:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/a-wiki-bleg.html

bjkeefe
03-10-2009, 01:45 AM
sorry, forgot:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/a-wiki-bleg.html

Thanks.

I don't know that I'd call this a legitimate "self-importance watch" bust. He's a public figure, with a reputation to protect, and if it's important to him that he be known not to have voted for GWB in 2004, what's so bad about that? And you have to give him a couple of points for not linking to his own Wikipedia page. Is Ann Althouse self-important because she won't stop trumpeting that she voted for Obama? Okay, bad example. ;^)

You could more plausibly mock Sully for cluelessness about Wikipedia etiquette, especially the part where he wonders aloud about editing his own page. On the other hand, this could be seen as a clever way to get his loyal minions over there on the double. (FWIW, the page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan) now shows him as a Kerry supporter in several places, and perhaps related, perhaps not, there have been a flurry of edits the past couple of days.)

You wanna see self-importance run amok? I still treasure this classic moment (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/06/mistaking-self-importance-for.html) from the last campaign.

If you're wondering who that is, I say, first, "Exactly." And if the name seems familiar but the details won't come, I'll just say that she was among the more deranged of the B-list Hillarhoids during the primaries, realized her looming irrelevance as April turned into June, and leaped with obvious relief upon HRC's call to her supporters to throw their weight behind Obama. Note the post date -- four days after HRC's concession speech.

bjkeefe
03-10-2009, 02:30 AM
P.S.

Nikki:

"But there are several factual errors, e.g. that I endorsed Bush in 2004, which I famously didn't,"

(italics mine)

I've had my attention called to the fact that you italicized famously, which I read right over originally. Is this what you meant by "self-importance?"

If so, eh, maybe. But it also seems to me that Sully's taken a boatload of grief for changing his tune on Bush, so I'd call that a legitimate use of the word on his part.

Lyle
03-10-2009, 08:05 PM
I've been a regular reader of Andrew Sullivan since 2000-2001, and he has done great harm to himself and his career in the last 3-4 years I think. He's all over the map these days politically, and he has never been totally honest about his move away from neo-conservatism to an anti-Bush (he's a war criminal), progressive, pro-Obama world view.

I like the guy. He's e-mailed me back bunches of times and even published one of my e-mails to him in his blog. However, he's no longer someone I find to be totally objective or to know exactly what he's talking about more than half the time. He even name calls people now and throws the term wingnut around like he's being totally objective. He's a journalistic disaster at the moment, in my opinion.

Although I continue to read him, I have lost a good bit of respect for him.

nikkibong
03-16-2009, 12:59 PM
A few contributions from the esteemed public "intellectual" and renowned "deep thinker" Andrew Sullivan today. Gosh, he's a modern day Cicero!

Shep Smith is the only "sane" person left at Fox News. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/god-bless-shep.html)

Stephen Baldwin is as "dumb as a post." (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/ron-paul-vs-ste.html)

A post about - I'm not making this up - sneeze porn. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/sensual-sneezin.html)

Brilliant! That's the kind of wisdom and deepthink that led a person to simultaneously endorse liberal Democrat Barack Obama, and rightwing lunatic conspiracy theorist and probable racist Ron Paul.

It's not hard to see what's in front of our nose: an incoherent hack. Cut him loose!

bjkeefe
03-16-2009, 03:32 PM
[...]

You're never going to make a case about supposed shallowness by cherry-picking three posts from a guy who puts up eight times that many items every day. Big deal, he passes along "caught my eye" kinds of items. It's a blog. And having a taste for silliness says nothing about one's intellect.

nikkibong
04-01-2009, 06:46 PM
SHOCKING LACK OF SELF AWARENESS WATCH:

Andrew Sullivan, writes (http://www.theatlantic.com/) today of the " shameless, unaccountable, relentless upward failure of the neocons in Washington."

My my, Sullivan has a point! Thank God this deep thinker, who supported Dubya in 2000, accused liberals of mounting a fifth column after 9/11, and flayed anyone who didn't support the Iraq war hasn't failed upward. I mean, it's not like someone with a track record like that would go from self-publishing, to being hosted at Time Magazine, to having his blog at one of the most prestigious mags in America (http://www.theatlantic.com/), is it?

TwinSwords
04-01-2009, 07:00 PM
SHOCKING LACK OF SELF AWARENESS WATCH:

Andrew Sullivan, writes (http://www.theatlantic.com/) today of the " shameless, unaccountable, relentless upward failure of the neocons in Washington."

My my, Sullivan has a point!
LOL, maybe when Conn Carroll hears, he'll walk over to his bookshelf and throw away Sullivan's book, too. Oh, wait: that reactionary would never have bought Sullivan's book in the first place.


Thank God this deep thinker, who supported Dubya in 2000, accused liberals of mounting a fifth column after 9/11, and flayed anyone who didn't support the Iraq war ...
And, don't forget, he was and remains an outspoken and aggressive proponet of the racist theory of Murray and Hernstein's The Bell Curve. In a post not too long ago, Sullivan pointed to the lack of widesread internet service in Africa as evidence of the genetic inferiority of black people.



I mean, it's not like someone with a track record like that would go from self-publishing, to being hosted at Time Magazine, to having his blog at one of the most prestigious mags in America (http://www.theatlantic.com/), is it?
LOL. Indeed. The village loves its idiots.

Bobby G
04-01-2009, 07:05 PM
I feel a bit odd saying this, considering how much I dislike Andrew Sullivan's style, but ...

Is there no point at which someone can forgive someone for what he says? Even when he makes a sincere apology, figures out where he went wrong, and devotes the rest of his effort to fighting against what he used to believe?

AemJeff
04-01-2009, 07:10 PM
I feel a bit odd saying this, considering how much I dislike Andrew Sullivan's style, but ...

Is there no point at which someone can forgive someone for what he says? Even when he makes a sincere apology, figures out where he went wrong, and devotes the rest of his effort to fighting against what he used to believe?

That is an excellent question.

TwinSwords
04-01-2009, 07:15 PM
I feel a bit odd saying this, considering how much I dislike Andrew Sullivan's style, but ...

Is there no point at which someone can forgive someone for what he says? Even when he makes a sincere apology, figures out where he went wrong, and devotes the rest of his effort to fighting against what he used to believe?

I feel conflicted about Sullivan. When he's not talking about Ron Paul or the genetic inferiority of black people, I love him. And there is no question that he's a Master Blogger. Agree or disagree, his blog is a constant source of interesting information.

I do think you can forgive people if they retract their previous positions -- and Sullivan has, with respect to Bush and the war and a bunch of other stuff.

For me, the problem is his continued advocacy of The Bell Curve.

nikkibong
04-01-2009, 07:20 PM
[QUOTE=TwinSwords;108850
For me, the problem is his continued advocacy of The Bell Curve.[/QUOTE]

There's that - and there's also the (to me, pretty unforgivable) fact that in the run-up the war, he constantly ascribed bad motives to war opponents. He made it personal and ugly, and I'm not going to forget that, now that he's had a "change of heart."

I rarely visit his blog anymore; contra to Twin Swords, I just think there's way too much crap on it. (Face of the day?! WTF?!)

bjkeefe
04-01-2009, 07:21 PM
SHOCKING LACK OF SELF AWARENESS WATCH:

Andrew Sullivan, writes (http://www.theatlantic.com/) today of the " shameless, unaccountable, relentless upward failure of the neocons in Washington."

My my, Sullivan has a point! Thank God this deep thinker, who supported Dubya in 2000, accused liberals of mounting a fifth column after 9/11, and flayed anyone who didn't support the Iraq war hasn't failed upward. I mean, it's not like someone with a track record like that would go from self-publishing, to being hosted at Time Magazine, to having his blog at one of the most prestigious mags in America (http://www.theatlantic.com/), is it?

The difference is, unlike the wingnut welfare queens, Sullivan has earned his promotions. He's ranked #30 among all blogs on Technorati (http://technorati.com/pop/blogs/?page=3). According to Alexa (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com), 56.7% of all visitors to theatlantic.com go to andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com, which means, according to Quantcast (http://www.quantcast.com/theatlantic.com#traffic)'s data, that he alone is responsible for about 7 million page views per month.

Find something else to hurl at him. This won't fly.

Also, he realized and apologized handsomely for his errors, as I've pointed out before (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=104800#post104800). Again, unlike the wingnut welfare queens.

Also, your link is broken. Here is the correct one (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/undeterrable.html).

Also, it wasn't him who wrote that line. He was quoting someone else.

Did you actually get anything right in your comment?

nikkibong
04-01-2009, 07:25 PM
Actually, it was he who wrote the line I quoted. Check the link again.

Page views do not equal quality or integrity of intellect, either. Fox News is #1 in Cable News.

graz
04-01-2009, 07:27 PM
I rarely visit his blog anymore; contra to Twin Swords, I just think there's way too much crap on it. (Face of the day?! WTF?!)

What's wrong with face of the day?

Didn't you just post this?:
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=108845&postcount=18

bjkeefe
04-01-2009, 07:32 PM
Actually, it was he who wrote the line I quoted. Check the link again.

Oops. Right you are. So you're 1 out of whatever, instead of 0, for that last post.

Page views do not equal quality or integrity of intellect, either. Fox News is #1 in Cable News.

That wasn't your original point. You were saying he was undeserving in his promotions. I say that he is. Those data show that he makes money for those who hire him. I would not say that Fox News has not earned its market share, no matter what I think of the quality of their content.

As to "quality or integrity of intellect," it's largely a matter of opinion. You don't think he has it, I do, the end.

TwinSwords
04-01-2009, 07:54 PM
There's that - and there's also the (to me, pretty unforgivable) fact that in the run-up the war, he constantly ascribed bad motives to war opponents. He made it personal and ugly, and I'm not going to forget that, now that he's had a "change of heart."
Good point. I agree. I'm sick of being called a traitor by the right. And now that the Democrats have taken back power in Washington, we have wingnuts contemplating revolution because they feel the country is in the hands of a foreign enemy. The rightwing mind is a bizarre, frightening thing. (Note for sensitive people or idiots: I'm employing a bit of hyperbole.)


I rarely visit his blog anymore; contra to Twin Swords, I just think there's way too much crap on it. (Face of the day?! WTF?!)
Face of the day? I enjoy that. It's photography -- and art. I like art. I like photography. I like his View from your Window, too. It's awesome getting to see all those snapshots from around the world.

graz
04-01-2009, 07:57 PM
Face of the day? I enjoy that. It's photography -- and art. I like art. I like photography. I like his View from your Window, too. It's awesome getting to see all those snapshots from around the world.

Agreed. And he has some awesome links to video art.

TwinSwords
04-01-2009, 07:57 PM
Also, it wasn't him who wrote that line. He was quoting someone else.

Who was he quoting? Why didn't he put it in quotes? (Or a blockquote?)

Update: Nevermind.

TwinSwords
04-01-2009, 08:00 PM
As to "quality or integrity of intellect," it's largely a matter of opinion. You don't think he has it, I do, the end.

LOL. Peevish much? http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif

bjkeefe
04-01-2009, 08:03 PM
Face of the day? I enjoy that. It's photography -- and art. I like art. I like photography. I like his View from your Window, too. It's awesome getting to see all those snapshots from around the world.

I do, too. I love looking at pictures of people's faces.

graz
04-01-2009, 08:12 PM
I do, too. I love looking at pictures of people's faces.

But that doesn't include yours on the Apollo project... keep the myth alive.

TwinSwords
04-01-2009, 08:13 PM
I do, too. I love looking at pictures of people's faces.

Exactly. You're right: they're pictures of people, and therefore inherently interesting. So face of the day is good for three reasons:

-- photography
-- art
-- people

nikkibong
06-22-2009, 05:58 AM
Yep; hes still an idiot:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/what-makes-this-repression-different.html

Look; I am completely sympathetic to the Iranian protesters, but comparing them to holocaust victims is lunatic and offensive. And acting as though Anne Frank has anything in common with "twittering" is, again, so insanely stupid as to defy belief.

Just like Sullivan's continued presence at the Atlantic.

claymisher
06-23-2009, 01:31 AM
Yep; hes still an idiot:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/what-makes-this-repression-different.html

Look; I am completely sympathetic to the Iranian protesters, but comparing them to holocaust victims is lunatic and offensive. And acting as though Anne Frank has anything in common with "twittering" is, again, so insanely stupid as to defy belief.

Just like Sullivan's continued presence at the Atlantic.

He is excitable! I remember Sully comparing Tony Blair to Winston Churchill back when he was warblogging.

nikkibong
09-28-2009, 01:39 PM
Simple Sully's past keeps coming back to haunt him.

Today (http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/09/ok_info_about_b_mccaughey_that.php), James Fallows, when discussing the nauseating right-wing demagauge Betsy McCaughey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_McCaughey), was forced to concede this:

(For the record: Yes, I am aware that my friend and current Atlantic colleague Andrew Sullivan, who was then TNR's editor, is the one who decided to publish this article. In the 15 years since the article's appearance, the magazine and its writers have, to their credit, repeatedly pointed out its errors and apologized for spreading its misinformation. Mickey Kaus was doing so immediately after the article's embarrassing selection for a National Magazine Award for "Excellence in Public Interest." Jonathan Cohn, author of the indispensable book Sick, did so early this year. The TNR site has a "link" to the original McCaughey piece, but it's not connected to the article itself.)

Boy, Andrew must find himself having to do a lot of repenting, eh?

Whatfur
09-28-2009, 01:57 PM
... was forced to concede this:



Not sure you had to go back 15 years to sully sully. Of course, you might if you want to make sure the sully pointed right and not left.

nikkibong
09-28-2009, 02:03 PM
Not sure you had to go back 15 years to sully sully. Of course, you might if you want to make sure the sully pointed right and not left.

It's not a matter of his being "right," "left" or whatever. I will concede that he's closer to my "side" now than he used to be.

His current orientation (of the political kind!) doesn't change the quality, or clarity of his thought. He was overemotional and unreflective when he was a right winger, and he's overemotional and unreflective now that he's a leftwinger.

He's kept the same bad habits all along: rushing to judgment, vilifying his opponents with unmatched zeal, being a complete and utter hysteric.

Oh, and through it all, he's fought (http://www.slate.com/id/2128199/) for the rights of white people to call black people stupid.

Whatfur
09-28-2009, 03:24 PM
It's not a matter of his being "right," "left" or whatever. I will concede that he's closer to my "side" now than he used to be.
...


In this light, I will then concede that my post lacked a point and that we are in agreement with the rest.

bjkeefe
09-28-2009, 03:28 PM
[...] Today (http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/09/ok_info_about_b_mccaughey_that.php), James Fallows ... [...]

Your peculiar obsession with Andrew Sullivan notwithstanding, thanks for the link to the Fallows piece. That one is worth reading, as is his link to Tim Dickinson's piece in Rolling Stone, "The Lie Machine (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30219673/the_lie_machine)." I highly recommend the latter to anyone not familiar with the right wing's Astroturfing organizations, their close connections with senior Republican officials, and how they work to stir up "the base."

Here's an excerpt:

Far from representing a spontaneous upwelling of populist rage, the protests were tightly orchestrated from the top down by corporate-funded front groups as well as top lobbyists for the health care industry. Call it the return of the Karl Rove playbook: The effort to mobilize the angriest fringe of the Republican base was guided by a conservative dream team that included the same GOP henchmen who Swift-boated John Kerry in 2004, smeared John McCain in 2000, wrote the script for Republican obstructionism on global warming, and harpooned the health care reform effort led by Hillary Clinton in 1993.

"The insurance industry is up to the same dirty tricks, using the same devious PR practices it has used for many years, to kill reform," says Wendell Potter, who stepped down last year as chief of corporate communications for health insurance giant CIGNA. "I'm certain that people showing up at these town halls feel that they're there on their own — but they don't realize they're being incited, ultimately, by the insurance industry and the other special interests."

Behind the scenes, top Republicans — including House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, Minority Leader John Boehner and the chairman of the GOP's Senate steering committee, Jim DeMint — worked hand-in-glove with the organizers of the town brawls. Their goal was not only to block health care reform but to bankrupt President Obama's political capital before he could move on to other key items on his agenda, including curbing climate change and expanding labor rights. As DeMint told an August teleconference of nearly 20,000 town-hall activists, "If we can stop him on this, the administration won't be able to go on to cap and trade, card check and the other things they want to do."

The article goes on to document many specific players and their funding sources. As I say, well worth the read.

Lyle
09-28-2009, 07:11 PM
It's not a matter of his being "right," "left" or whatever. I will concede that he's closer to my "side" now than he used to be.

His current orientation (of the political kind!) doesn't change the quality, or clarity of his thought. He was overemotional and unreflective when he was a right winger, and he's overemotional and unreflective now that he's a leftwinger.

He's kept the same bad habits all along: rushing to judgment, vilifying his opponents with unmatched zeal, being a complete and utter hysteric.

Oh, and through it all, he's fought (http://www.slate.com/id/2128199/) for the rights of white people to call black people stupid.

"vilifying his opponents with umatched zeal" is what I can't stand about Sullivan these days, and about people he once fawned all over no less.

However, I think he's generally right in his perspective on the Bell Curve.

TwinSwords
09-28-2009, 11:57 PM
"vilifying his opponents with umatched zeal" is what I can't stand about Sullivan these days, and about people he once fawned all over no less.

However, I think he's generally right in his perspective on the Bell Curve.

Preserved.

Lyle
09-29-2009, 02:12 AM
Oh no!

nikkibong
10-11-2009, 06:06 PM
Yesterday, the indispensible James Fallows noted (http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/dont_these_people_have_the_goo.php) that Nobel Prizes cannot be given posthumously.

Today, the dispensible Andrew Sullivan boldly declared (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/if-not-obama-who.html) that Neda, the murdered Iranian woman, should have won the prize.

Maybe The Great Oracle should start reading his colleagues . . .?

Surely, even you, bjkeefe, find this kind of funny . . .?

bjkeefe
10-11-2009, 06:24 PM
Surely, even you, bjkeefe, find this kind of funny . . .?

What, your ongoing obsession with reporting everything you can find that makes Andrew Sullivan look less than 100% perfect?

I suppose, but probably not "funny" in a sense you'd find flattering.

nikkibong
10-12-2009, 12:43 PM
Yesterday, the indispensible James Fallows noted (http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/dont_these_people_have_the_goo.php) that Nobel Prizes cannot be given posthumously.

Today, the dispensible Andrew Sullivan boldly declared (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/if-not-obama-who.html) that Neda, the murdered Iranian woman, should have won the prize.

Maybe The Great Oracle should start reading his colleagues . . .?

Surely, even you, bjkeefe, find this kind of funny . . .?

UPDATE:

Simple Sullivan admits (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/nedas-nobel.html) the error, sort of.

a) 'The Dish' admits the error, not Sullivan himself.
and
b) He passive-aggressively attacks the Washington Post in the midst of his "apology."

Pathetic.

bjkeefe
10-12-2009, 05:40 PM
UPDATE:

Same answer.

nikkibong
10-12-2009, 06:42 PM
Same answer.

You mean, again, rather than respond on the merits, you're going to attack me personally?

Truly Sullivanesque. And not in the sense you would find flattering.

bjkeefe
10-12-2009, 07:48 PM
You mean, again, rather than respond on the merits, you're going to attack me personally?

Calm yourself, child. I am not "attacking" you. I merely noted the persistence of this weird little obsession of yours.

And no, there are no "merits" here. Sullivan made -- and later corrected for the record -- an error of fact on a point whose importance would be inflated nine orders of magnitude by calling it trivial.

End of discussion.

nikkibong
10-30-2009, 03:35 PM
I got this most incredible link from TNC's blog today:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/von-hoffman-award-nominee.html

So, let me get this straight: the Bush-supporting, Betsey McCaughey-publishing, Iraq-war supporting, Bell-Curve supporting Andrew Sullivan is now in the business of mocking people for their bad foresight?

FIRE HIM.

UPDATE: Is TNC simply being devilishly ironic when he labels his approving post "The Weight of Being Demonstrably Wrong"? Or is he actually that clueless? Thoughts?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/images/2004/12/14/andy%20002.jpg

bjkeefe
10-30-2009, 03:45 PM
I got this most incredible link from TNC's blog today:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/von-hoffman-award-nominee.html

Your strange obsession notwithstanding, it was worth suffering through your peripheral comments in return for the link. Colbert was hilarious! So, thanks.

As to the rest of your post, I'll say only this: if we required that critics themselves have unspotted pasts, we'd never get any criticism. And then clowns like Lieberman -- and worse, if that is possible -- would be allowed to run amok. Is that what you really want? And more to the point, why should you be allowed to say anything?

[Added] A second reason to thank your for the link: that quote from the EvenTheLiberalNewRepublic™ editorial that he passed along from Instaputz was truly delicious.

nikkibong
10-30-2009, 03:53 PM
You're welcome. I liked the Colbert clip as well.

[Also, just looking for another excuse to post this:]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/images/2004/12/14/andy%20002.jpg

ALSO: Do you not see the irony (some would say hypocrisy) in Sullivan attacking people for the idiocy of their past positions? Shouldn't the Van Hoffman award be renamed the, oh I don't know, . . .Sullivan Award?

bjkeefe
10-30-2009, 04:03 PM
You're welcome. I liked the Colbert clip as well.

[Also, just looking for another excuse to post this:]

[...]

ALSO: Do you not see the irony (some would say hypocrisy) in Sullivan attacking people for the idiocy of their past positions? Shouldn't the Van Hoffman award be renamed the, oh I don't know, . . .Sullivan Award?

Sorry. Too late (http://www.aausullivan.org/overview.html).

==========

[Added] And no, I don't really see the hypocrisy. The VH award is for astoundingly bad prognostication, not for taking a position that has evolved from a past position, or for taking a position that nikkibong does not share.

Also, it's the Von Hoffman award, not "Van." (You're welcome.)

nikkibong
10-30-2009, 04:13 PM
Sorry. Too late (http://www.aausullivan.org/overview.html).

==========

[Added] And no, I don't really see the hypocrisy. The VH award is for astoundingly bad prognostication, not for taking a position that has evolved from a past position, or for taking a position that nikkibong does not share.

Also, it's the Von Hoffman award, not "Van." (You're welcome.)

Brendan, you know as well as I do that the Oracle of DC's "predictions" regarding the Iraq disaster more than qualify as "astoundingly bad." Still fail to see the irony?

Thanks for the excuse, though:

http://crooksandliars.com/images/2004/12/14/andy%20002.jpg

bjkeefe
10-30-2009, 04:20 PM
Thanks for the excuse, though:

[...]


I'm tempted to inaugurate the Nikkibong Award for Obsessive Repetitiveness, but sadly, you've got a ways to go yet before you catch
your hero (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/member.php?u=20).

nikkibong
10-30-2009, 04:28 PM
I'm tempted to inaugurate the Nikkibong Award for Obsessive Repetitiveness, but sadly, you've got a ways to go yet before you catch
your hero (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/member.php?u=20).

And I'll give you a BjKeefe Award for Personally Attacking Commenters Without Cause.

I made a point about Sullivan, you made a point about me. Weird.

bjkeefe
10-30-2009, 05:22 PM
And I'll give you a BjKeefe Award for Personally Attacking Commenters Without Cause.

Oh, the hysteria. You really ought to learn another verb. You use "attacking" way too frequently.

As to "cause:" Look, nikki, you posted something on a public forum and I commented on it. Then you upped the ante by posting the same juvenile picture three times. Further, your post was another in an apparently endless series, to which you know I have a habit of responding. If you're unable to take responses to what you must know comes across as an attempt to provoke, think a little longer the next time before you click "Submit."

claymisher
10-30-2009, 05:48 PM
What is that, a sleep apnea mask? Why is that funny?

John Cole's been giving Sullivan the business pretty hard lately. I'm with Cole.

nikkibong
10-30-2009, 07:04 PM
What is that, a sleep apnea mask?

What is that, claymisher talking to himself again?

bjkeefe
10-30-2009, 08:02 PM
What is that, claymisher talking to himself again?

Naw. I think he just clicked the wrong "Reply" button or something. I'm pretty sure the comment applies to what you posted, and posted, and posted, earlier today.

AemJeff
10-30-2009, 08:34 PM
Heh. I think you guys should save it for the far more important issue of Robert Stacy McCain and the possibility that somebody might post a link to something he's said, without pointing that out that he's a racist.

AemJeff
10-30-2009, 08:40 PM
Heh. I think you guys should save it for the far more important issue of Robert Stacy McCain and the possibility that somebody might post a link to something he's said, without pointing that out that he's a racist.

Damn I make a joke, only to find out that Twin is on the case (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=135468#post135468)! Way to go TwinSwords!

TwinSwords
10-30-2009, 08:44 PM
Damn I make a joke, only to find out that Twin is on the case (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=135468#post135468)! Way to go TwinSwords!

http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif

claymisher
10-30-2009, 08:57 PM
Naw. I think he just clicked the wrong "Reply" button or something. I'm pretty sure the comment applies to what you posted, and posted, and posted, earlier today.

Yeah, I don't really pay any attention to that. I view the threads as flat. That's why I almost always quote people. That threaded view is such a pain, I don't know how anyone can stand it.

TwinSwords
10-30-2009, 09:11 PM
Yeah, I don't really pay any attention to that. I view the threads as flat. That's why I almost always quote people. That threaded view is such a pain, I don't know how anyone can stand it.

Interesting.

When this forum was launched, threads defaulted to the flat view and there was much bitching and moaning by the regulars who migrated over here from Phorum, which was threaded. I spent a couple days trying to convince them that the flat view would be fine and everyone would get used to it, but in short order I changed my mind and became a threaded user. Occasionally I flip to flat when I want to make sure I'm not missing the newest posts, especially in the longer threads.

Why do you say threaded is a pain?

You do make a good point: people should always use the quote function because not everyone uses the threaded view, and it really screws with the flat-threaders when you omit the quote.

TwinSwords
10-30-2009, 09:15 PM
Naw. I think he just clicked the wrong "Reply" button or something. I'm pretty sure the comment applies to what you posted, and posted, and posted, earlier today.

I like Sullivan, as you know, and in recent years I have greatly appreciated his contributions to the dialogue. But I will say that for the same reason I feel Jeff and I are justified in constantly pointing out that R.S. McCain is a racist, Sullivan should forever be held to account for his racism.

I'd like to think that his efforts to promote The Bell Curve were a horrible lapse in judgement by a young man. But in all the years since, to the present, he continues to promote and defend the views outlined in that revolting text.

I just about threw up on my keyboard about a year ago when I saw a post he put up showing that internet use on the continent of Africa is lower than other places on earth. He said it was evidence that The Bell Curve was correct (paraphrasing); in other words, evidence that black people are just stupid.

That kind of scientific racism is so vile and so dangerous that I do believe it has to be vigorously opposed, and while Nikkibong seems to get very little right anymore, he is right about this.

nikkibong
10-30-2009, 09:26 PM
How great it is to be among friends.

Ocean
10-30-2009, 09:35 PM
How great it is to be among friends.

Nothing to worry. True friendship will prevail.

TwinSwords
10-30-2009, 09:40 PM
How great it is to be among friends.

Nikki,
I have always liked you. And I still do. But your earlier attempts (two!) to ingratiate yourself to kidneystones just amazed me. But it's not my business, so I'll leave it there.

AemJeff
10-30-2009, 09:41 PM
How great it is to be among friends.

I think tempers have flared recently and there's been some spillover to unrelated topics. I'll say publicly that I think nikkibong is a valuable contributor to the board, and is, in fact, right more often than he 's wrong. (That latter occurring mostly when he disagrees with me.)

TwinSwords
10-30-2009, 09:49 PM
I think tempers have flared recently and there's been some spillover to unrelated topics. I'll say publicly that I think nikkibong is a valuable contributor to the board, and is, in fact, right more often than he 's wrong. (That latter occurring mostly when he disagrees with me.)

Well said. Plus, the disagreements always make a bigger impression than the agreements. I might even go so far as to say that the better friends you are with someone, the more bothersome are the occasional disagreements.

Or is that just me? http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/uhoh.gif

Ocean
10-30-2009, 09:59 PM
Well said. Plus, the disagreements always make a bigger impression than the agreements. I might even go so far as to say that the better friends you are with someone, the more bothersome are the occasional disagreements.

Or is that just me? http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/uhoh.gif

No, it isn't just you... http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/cheers.gif

bjkeefe
10-30-2009, 11:14 PM
How great it is to be among friends.

Don't mistake disagreement (or bickering, ridicule, a judgmental tone, etc.) for anything larger.

bjkeefe
10-30-2009, 11:21 PM
I like Sullivan, as you know, and in recent years I have greatly appreciated his contributions to the dialogue. But I will say that for the same reason I feel Jeff and I are justified in constantly pointing out that R.S. McCain is a racist, Sullivan should forever be held to account for his racism.

I'd like to think that his efforts to promote The Bell Curve were a horrible lapse in judgement by a young man. But in all the years since, to the present, he continues to promote and defend the views outlined in that revolting text.

I just about threw up on my keyboard about a year ago when I saw a post he put up showing that internet use on the continent of Africa is lower than other places on earth. He said it was evidence that The Bell Curve was correct (paraphrasing); in other words, evidence that black people are just stupid.

That kind of scientific racism is so vile and so dangerous that I do believe it has to be vigorously opposed, and while Nikkibong seems to get very little right anymore, he is right about this.

I will have to take your word for it, for the time being, at least. I'm not familiar with what he's had to say in this regard except by third-hand accounts. If you're right, then sure, that's not something to let slide.

More generalky, it certainly is true, as I said long ago when nikki first posted something anti-Andy, that I do not come close to sharing all of Sullivan's views, and that's not even counting dumb views he had in the past that he's smartened up about since.

So, I don't have a problem with his being held to account and taken to task, especially given his prominence. I guess I just think there's a right way and a wrong way to go about doing these things, and for reasons I can't quite articulate, nikki too often chooses the latter.

graz
10-30-2009, 11:39 PM
How great it is to be among friends.
Did you read the responses to your article on Stumptown?

For your skin my friend:):

http://www.thelounge-hairdressing.co.uk/products/img/bedhead/Thickening%20Cream%20100ml_larger.jpg

I've got a stash... I'll gladly share.

Bobby G
10-31-2009, 02:33 AM
I don't get it. If people attack--I guess "attack" is too strong a word--make fun of nikkibong, he should not mention that he doesn't like it. After all, protesting means he's thin-skinned. Should he respond in kind, he'll just be caught in a constantly escalating insult war that will make people like him less. I guess, then, he's supposed to not say anything at all, <sarcasm>just like all the rest of you whenever anyone insults you.</sarcasm>

More seriously, nikki, you're supposed to insult people back.

graz
10-31-2009, 03:31 AM
I don't get it. If people attack--I guess "attack" is too strong a word--make fun of nikkibong, he should not mention that he doesn't like it. After all, protesting means he's thin-skinned. Should he respond in kind, he'll just be caught in a constantly escalating insult war that will make people like him less. I guess, then, he's supposed to not say anything at all, <sarcasm>just like all the rest of you whenever anyone insults you.</sarcasm>

More seriously, nikki, you're supposed to insult people back.

What's so complicated. Nikki's sarcasm begot the same. Who likes to be made fun of, as you put it? Not many I presume. But we're not running a self-esteem clinic, it's a public forum. And an informal one at that, with a wide range of posting styles.

I can't speak for nikki, but I can attest to his engaging in attacks or "making fun of" or even moral judgements in response to certain posts. Lately, his special pleading suggests that you might be right about his sensitivity to criticism. You know what they say about standing the heat in the kitchen.

nikkibong
10-31-2009, 10:49 AM
So, I will try to make this the last post on this particular matter:

Simple Sullivan has conveniently expunged the record (just like his pot bust), but my research suggests that the Von Hoffman award is given (http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/000223.html) in honor of Von Hoffman's "moaning" that the Afghanistan war may be lost -- a claim he made in 2001.

Considering that the Afghanistan war is far from won now eight years later, might the name for this particular award be considered slightly absurd? In fact, Von Hoffman showed apt Cassandra-like prescience. Which is to say, the "Von Hoffman" award might not mean what Sullivan thinks it means.

nikkibong
10-31-2009, 01:40 PM
I hereby present a nomination for the Von Hoffman Award, which recognizes eerily accurate prognostication.

The great Eric Alterman (why hasn't he been on bhtv recently, btw?) foresaw the Sullivan Syndrome early. From a 2002 column:

Now Sullivan has launched a career in the brave new world of "blogging," or vanity websites. And while his site arouses a certain gruesome car-wreck fascination, it serves primarily as a reminder to writers of why we need editors. Andrewsullivan.com sets a standard for narcissistic egocentricity that makes Henry Kissinger look like St. Francis of Assisi. Readers are informed, for instance, that Andy's toilet recently overflowed; that he had a rollicking dinner chez Hitchens; that he might have seen Tina Brown across a hotel lobby, but he's not sure; and that, in separate, apparently unrelated incidents, he had a nightmare and ate a bad tuna-fish sandwich that upset his tummy, requiring many "stomach evacuations."

Link (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020408/alterman).

(NOTE: Forgot to have the word 'recently' in the first post. I've always enjoyed Alterman's appearances here; it's been too long!)

PreppyMcPrepperson
10-31-2009, 01:43 PM
The great Eric Alterman (why hasn't he been on bhtv, btw?)

You mean recently, right? Cuz he's been on several times before.

bjkeefe
10-31-2009, 02:31 PM
So, I will try to make this the last post on this particular matter:

This effort, I see (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=135588#post135588), failed, but we'll let it go, in l'esprit de l'escalier. (Well, not "let go" in the sense of not responding to it, but "let go" in not taking you to task for having an afterthought. That's certainly fine.)

Simple Sullivan has conveniently expunged the record (just like his pot bust), but my research suggests that the Von Hoffman award is given (http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/000223.html) in honor of Von Hoffman's "moaning" that the Afghanistan war may be lost -- a claim he made in 2001.

Allow me to say that I am somewhat less than blown away by your mad research skillz.

Point the first: There is more information available than anyone could want about the pot bust. Start here (http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew+sullivan+marijuana).

If by "expunged" you mean in some more narrow (legalistic) sense, I cannot say for sure (lacking the interest to look it up) what the police records currently show, but it is a matter of public record that the federal misdemeanor charge against him was dismissed by the US Attorney's office. See, for example, first result at above link.

As an aside, I would say that your fuming over Sullivan not being railroaded for being caught with one (1) joint smells of nothing so much as witch hunt. But maybe you're more puritanical than I had earlier thought. No matter -- the whole thing is too trivial to have discussed even to this extent. Let's move on.

Point the second: Sullivan's archives are available here: 2001-Jan 2006 (http://sullivanarchives.theatlantic.com/index.php.dish_inc-archives.dish_archive.html) and Jan 2006-present (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/archives.html). Also note: the latter has a link to the former. Also note: the latter link is available in the sidebar on the home page of his current blog (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/). Admittedly, it was dastardly of that Andrew Sullivan to obfuscate this by labeling the section "ARCHIVES, ETC."

Point the third: Googling von Hoffman returns as its top result a link to the Wikipedia entry for Nicholas von Hoffman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_von_Hoffman). Text-searching that page for award leads to the following:

After the US sent troops to Afghanistan, von Hoffman predicted the United States and its allies would be defeated shortly after the fall of Kabul. [2] Shortly thereafter the Taliban retreated and the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar fell; columnist and blogger Andrew Sullivan thus created a parody Von Hoffman Award for egregiously bad predictions.[3]

Total time spent to find these sources: about one minute, and that was before coffee.

Considering that the Afghanistan war is far from won now eight years later, might the name for this particular award be considered slightly absurd?

No. Von Hoffman, as I understand it, was making a short term prediction. You can't say "something bad is going to happen next month," have the situation be less than optimal in other ways a decade later, and say, "See? Told ya!!!1!"

bjkeefe
10-31-2009, 02:45 PM
I hereby present a nomination for the Von Hoffman Award, which recognizes eerily accurate prognostication.

The great Eric Alterman (why hasn't he been on bhtv recently, btw?) foresaw the Sullivan Syndrome early. From a 2002 column:

Now Sullivan has launched a career in the brave new world of "blogging," or vanity websites. And while his site arouses a certain gruesome car-wreck fascination, it serves primarily as a reminder to writers of why we need editors. Andrewsullivan.com sets a standard for narcissistic egocentricity that makes Henry Kissinger look like St. Francis of Assisi. Readers are informed, for instance, that Andy's toilet recently overflowed; that he had a rollicking dinner chez Hitchens; that he might have seen Tina Brown across a hotel lobby, but he's not sure; and that, in separate, apparently unrelated incidents, he had a nightmare and ate a bad tuna-fish sandwich that upset his tummy, requiring many "stomach evacuations."

Link (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020408/alterman).

As to the point about "a reminder to writers of why we need editors," okay. Doing it bloggy style is not to everyone's taste. If you prefer your reading material to have been more considerately produced, you are advised to look elsewhere.

As to "narcissistic egocentricity," same answer: matter of taste. If you don't like Sullivan -- or anyone else -- expressing opinions forcefully, sharing what you might consider TMI, or rambling on about what you might call banalities, don't read him. End of problem.

I am compelled to ask, though: How about an Alterman Award? Say, For castigating an occupation which for the past seven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Alterman#Career) years has paid him handsomely, not to mention which, by one measure at least, grants him more attention (http://www.google.com/search?q=eric+alterman) than anything else he does. (And just look at that branding success (http://www.google.com/search?q=altercation)! Who "owns" a common generic word more than you? You go!).

Okay, we'll have to tighten up the award description a bit, if it's punchy we want.

NB: Alterman is one of my favorite diavloggers, and I miss him, too. I'd even say he is as close to a hero as anyone is in my current cynical state, so this mild dig at him for something he wrote eons ago (in Internet time) should not in any way be construed as an attack.

==========

[Added] I should attribute "bloggy style," since I consider it so clever. I first came across this delightful eye-pun from reading Heather Havrilesky.

Bobby G
10-31-2009, 03:03 PM
<non-sarcasm>Just so I can be clear: you're making fun of nikki not so much because of his peculiar* obsession with Andrew Sullivan, but because of the fact that he tends to make fun of people and even morally condemn them in his own posts. Then, when he gets upset about it, you call him thin-skinned because, hey, he dishes out this kind of insult all the time, so why's he all of a sudden complaining when others do it? Is that a fair assessment?</non-sarcasm>

Assuming I haven't misrepresented your position, I think nikki isn't being hypocritical for, or offering special pleading in, being offended by your funning him. That's because nikki is criticizing a public figure, Andrew Sullivan, and, while he does it obsessively, he isn't mocking any of you over it. It seems to me like this: A insults public figure P. B attacks A personally for going after P, even though B doesn't have any special liking for or relationship to P. A gets hurt, saying, "why are you mocking me for going after P?" B says, "why, A, you've mocked C, D, and E in the past. Therefore it's okay to mock you for mocking P." I don't think it's hypocritical for A (nikki) to be perplexed in this case.

*--I think his obsession with Sullivan is weird, but I take it there is some good reason to find Sullivan especially infuriating: (1) he tends to hero-worship; (2) he takes IQ differences seriously; (3) he's one of the most prominent bloggers on the Internet; (4) he often castigates people in the most personal terms for holding views that he used to hold.

Re: (2) a lot of people take IQ differences seriously, some of whom get some respect (e.g., Steven Pinker, Razib Khan, William Saletan). I'm sure there are also a number of hero-worshiping and personally insulting bloggers out there as well. Maybe it's the combination that particularly irks nikki? That said, even if there is good reason for it, it still comes off as an odd fixation, at least for someone who is entirely normal the rest of the time (I'm sure the rest of us have odd fixations, too, though we probably don't broadcast them).

AemJeff
10-31-2009, 03:15 PM
<non-sarcasm>Just so I can be clear: you're making fun of nikki not so much because of his peculiar* obsession with Andrew Sullivan, but because of the fact that he tends to make fun of people and even morally condemn them in his own posts. Then, when he gets upset about it, you call him thin-skinned because, hey, he dishes out this kind of insult all the time, so why's he all of a sudden complaining when others do it? Is that a fair assessment?</non-sarcasm>

Assuming I haven't misrepresented your position, I think nikki isn't being hypocritical for, or offering special pleading in, being offended by your funning him. That's because nikki is criticizing a public figure, Andrew Sullivan, and, while he does it obsessively, he isn't mocking any of you over it. It seems to me like this: A insults public figure P. B attacks A personally for going after P, even though B doesn't have any special liking for or relationship to P. A gets hurt, saying, "why are you mocking me for going after P?" B says, "why, A, you've mocked C, D, and E in the past. Therefore it's okay to mock you for mocking P." I don't think it's hypocritical for A (nikki) to be perplexed in this case.

*--I think his obsession with Sullivan is weird, but I take it there is some good reason to find Sullivan especially infuriating: (1) he tends to hero-worship; (2) he takes IQ differences seriously; (3) he's one of the most prominent bloggers on the Internet; (4) he often castigates people in the most personal terms for holding views that he used to hold.

Re: (2) a lot of people take IQ differences seriously, some of whom get some respect (e.g., Steven Pinker, Razib Khan, William Saletan). I'm sure there are also a number of hero-worshiping and personally insulting bloggers out there as well. Maybe it's the combination that particularly irks nikki? That said, even if there is good reason for it, it still comes off as an odd fixation, at least for someone who is entirely normal the rest of the time (I'm sure the rest of us have odd fixations, too, though we probably don't broadcast them).

Also Re: (2), you don't have to be an absolutist on the idea of ever examining IQ score differences between racial groups to find serious deficiencies in Murray's The Bell Curve. This old Slate article (http://www.slate.com/id/2416/) seems to me an awfully strong critique of Murray's methods, sufficiently so to fundamentally question his conclusions. Not that this speaks directly to what you were saying, but I think it's important to note, nevertheless.

claymisher
10-31-2009, 03:18 PM
some of whom get some respect (e.g., Steven Pinker, Razib Khan, William Saletan)

One out of three ain't great.

claymisher
10-31-2009, 03:24 PM
Are there two Altermans? Because I gave up Alterman's blog years ago. Way too much boomer rock nostalgia.

I really like him on bhtv though. I read somewhere he gave it up because he didn't like people quoting his video ramblings in print.

Sullivan admits he often gets too excitable and emotional, and that the quality of his arguments suffers for it. I agree with him. He does deliver on the general interest nerd blog stuff though, like kottke or boingboing.

bjkeefe
10-31-2009, 03:54 PM
This is largely a matter of perspective, and since I am not in any case going to feel compelled to abstain from responding to nikkibong when he tosses up future digs at Sullivan, I will keep this short.

First point:

It seems to me like this: A insults public figure P. B attacks A personally for going after P ...

(Emph. added.)

As noted elsewhere (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=135443#post135443), I think it is an exaggeration to characterize my responses as "attacks." I'd say it's more accurate to characterize my responses as, say, push-back with some sardonic seasoning.

I'd also note nikki's tendency to respond to my responses in a heightened fashion, which when I see his raised ante, often then leads to his howling about it being "personal." Thus, I think graz's (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=135536#post135536) thin skin point stands. (And many bonus points to him for casting it humorously -- a spoonful of sugar, and so forth.)

Second:

... (3) he's [Sullivan is] one of the most prominent bloggers on the Internet; ...

Also as noted elsewhere (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=135534#post135534), I see no problem whatsoever in holding Andrew Sullivan to account and taking him to task, and that one quoted reason alone is more than sufficient justification in my book. However, as I also said at the link, there is a right way and a wrong way to do this. What nikkibong does in this thread frequently strikes me less as serious criticism and more as pettiness: nit-picking, indulging in a grudge, call it what you like. It is certainly at times sloppy and mock-worthy, if nothing else. (e.g. (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=135596#post135596))

Finally, nikki is posting in a public forum. He is either inviting response or at least must be aware that he is subject to it. You gotta reap just what you sow/That old saying is true, as the man sang (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6IGH53PZ6Y). Further, no one is compelling him to read any responses directed at him, let alone respond to them. Further, this is an Internet forum, fer crissake. The occasional dabbling in one-upmanship is all in good fun. Okay, so if it's not your favorite game, don't play, but it's hard to imagine anything less worthy of being Very Serious about.

Bobby G
10-31-2009, 04:11 PM
Khan or Pinker?

Bobby G
10-31-2009, 04:22 PM
As noted elsewhere (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=135443#post135443), I think it is an exaggeration to characterize my responses as "attacks." I'd say it's more accurate to characterize my responses as, say, push-back with some sardonic seasoning.

I really did my damnedest to make sure I didn't use the word "attack", precisely because I thought you'd refer me to that post of yours. That's why I used "mocked", "insulted", "funned", etc. But honestly, your calling me on using "attacked" seems an awful lot like calling me on using "insulted". There are a lot of ways of using that word, and you don't have proprietorship over it.

Second:

What nikkibong does in this thread frequently strikes me less as serious criticism and more as pettiness: nit-picking, indulging in a grudge, call it what you like. It is certainly at times sloppy and mock-worthy, if nothing else. (e.g. (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=135596#post135596))

Well, he's treating Sullivan like many treat Beck or Limbaugh. It's not my cup of tea, but it's many people's. I haven't read all of your oeuvre, so I don't know if you have indulged in nit-picky attacks on Beck or Limbaugh or their ilk, but I wouldn't be surprised if you have.

Finally, nikki is posting in a public forum. He is either inviting response or at least must be aware that he is subject to it. You gotta reap just what you sow/That old saying is true, as the man sang (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6IGH53PZ6Y). Further, no one is compelling him to read any responses directed at him, let alone respond to them. Further, this is an Internet forum, fer crissake. The occasional dabbling in one-upmanship is all in good fun. Okay, so if it's not your favorite game, don't play, but it's hard to imagine anything less worthy of being Very Serious about.

Fine, but the above rationales justify my saying anything about anyone at any time (except for revealing personal information or things of that sort). Obviously, you don't mean that. The thing is, what you say above is really, really, broad, so I'm not sure what lesson I'm supposed to draw from it. Is it that nikki shouldn't feel aggrieved? Is it that I shouldn't have written in defense of him? Is it that anything goes?

But whatever, I grant that this is mild rain in a thimble, so I'm not particularly invested.

bjkeefe
10-31-2009, 04:23 PM
Are there two Altermans? Because I gave up Alterman's blog years ago. Way too much boomer rock nostalgia.

There are not two Eric Altermen blogging, that I am aware of, no. He does still geezer out about his preferred music, yes, but those parts are easily enough page-downed past, and a lot of what else he has to say still holds my interest. And even if he's gotten stale to your taste, his blog is worth checking out on Fridays just to catch the latest email from Charlie Pierce.

I really like him on bhtv though. I read somewhere he gave it up because he didn't like people quoting his video ramblings in print.

Particularly out of context, was his biggest problem as I recall, along with the general idea of people who don't like him treating an informal conversation as something as fair to scrutinize as a researched article. It's a shame that he has this problem, but maybe he feels his rep elsewhere is too important to want to risk one idle aside dominating the Google results for his name. Understandable, I guess.

Sullivan admits he often gets too excitable and emotional, and that the quality of his arguments suffers for it. I agree with him. He does deliver on the general interest nerd blog stuff though, like kottke or boingboing.

Yeah. I think even the biggest Sully fan will acknowledge that reading him regularly means being taken on a roller coaster ride. I have to say, though, that I've fallen out of the Daily Dish habit at the moment, for whatever reason. Too much else out there, I guess. Could be, in part, due to his excessive vacillating and occasional spewing about important things without thinking them through, I suppose. But when I do follow a link to a post of his, I usually think, damn, why am I not still visiting this blog regularly? As you said, one does get a huge range of pointers to all sorts of interesting things.

bjkeefe
10-31-2009, 05:22 PM
I really did my damnedest to make sure I didn't use the word "attack", precisely because I thought you'd refer me to that post of yours. That's why I used "mocked", "insulted", "funned", etc. But honestly, your calling me on using "attacked" seems an awful lot like calling me on using "insulted". There are a lot of ways of using that word, and you don't have proprietorship over it.

Proprietorship? Oh, relax. I am merely expressing an opinion about usage. To my mind, our discourse is riddled with people too frequently reaching for the strongest action verbs they can find, with the result that the good words are cheapened, robbed of the effect we would like them to have when the occasion really calls. I see it in the same spirit as Mr. Godwin -- once someone plays certain cards, the only thing the rest of us can do is roll our eyes. So, it's my own little pet project to be a Miss Thistlebottom.

But you go right ahead and use attacks as often as you like. I don't claim to own the word, and I never have.

Well, he's treating Sullivan like many treat Beck or Limbaugh. It's not my cup of tea, but it's many people's. I haven't read all of your oeuvre, so I don't know if you have indulged in nit-picky attacks on Beck or Limbaugh or their ilk, but I wouldn't be surprised if you have.

Yes, hypothetically, it's hypothetically possible that I am hypothetically guilty of nit-picking on occasion. I will even stipulate that it's likely.

Key difference: I do not whine about being "attacked" or otherwise take it personally when someone responds to something I've posted about the antics of some prominent wingnut. See (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=3773) for yourself.

Fine, but the above rationales justify my saying anything about anyone at any time (except for revealing personal information or things of that sort). Obviously, you don't mean that.

Correct.

The thing is, what you say above is really, really, broad, so I'm not sure what lesson I'm supposed to draw from it. Is it that nikki shouldn't feel aggrieved? Is it that I shouldn't have written in defense of him? Is it that anything goes?

You're looking for a well-defined rule set for conversation on an Internet forum, and I can't give you one. As the endless threads, elsewhere on this site, that relate to drafts proposing a "comments policy" clearly show, this is close to an impossible task, especially when you want the policy to apply to N people, N >> 2.

What can I say? Well, first: no, I don't believe "anything goes." Certainly, I believe there are is a line that should not be crossed. Revealing personal information is clearly on the other side of that line, sure. Making shit up about others and using widely-agreed upon terms of hate speech are two other no-nos that I'm happy to be fairly absolutist about.

Much apart from those, I can't say anything but that I'd have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis, with historical awareness included.

I can say one more general thing, which you may have heard me say before, a favorite line of mine, from Johann Hari (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/freedom-of-speech-means-especially.html):

The solution to the problems of free speech – that sometimes people will say terrible things – is always and irreducibly more free speech.

That's just axiomatic to me.

To return to a particular question of yours, no: I am not at all saying that you should not have written in defense of nikki, or otherwise tossed in your two cents. It's an Internet forum -- the more the merrier.

To the world at large, I would say: Just don't take it so personally when someone says, especially after you jump into the middle of something, that what you said is WRONG or RIDICULOUS or WORST POST EVAR or whatever -- people write more forcefully in this environment than they really feel. It's a shoutypants kind of place. You really will have more fun if you lighten up a bit.

Back to addressing you, BG ... As to "feel[ing] aggrieved," it ought to be obvious by now where I'm at, at least in this case. I'm not saying people aren't entitled to their feelings or to set thresholds different from mine, of course, but here, I would say that they're not justified for at least two reasons: (1) My initial responses have been mild, and (2) my ensuing responses in any sub-thread, to the extent that they have been less mild, have just stayed in step (maybe one step ahead, after enough iterations) with nikki's. I don't think you get to keep riffing on the same theme, in the same fashion, when you know what's likely to happen, and then continue to complain about it happening. I also don't think you get to try to give back as good or better than you get, and then start huffing when it turns out you're not up for it, after all.

But whatever, I grant that this is mild rain in a thimble, so I'm not particularly invested.

Okay.

nikkibong
11-05-2009, 01:28 PM
Sorry I'm a bit late to this, but the Boston Globe has demonstrated (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/09/16/prosecutors_apply_the_law_equally/)just how unfair Stoner Sullivan's avoidance of pot charges was. Of course, Sullivan could have "manned" up (OK, wrong term where Sullivan, who worships Madonna, is concerned*) and asked to face the same charges as his pothead posse. It would have made for a great "I Am Spartacus" moment**.

On the other hand, it's increasingly clear why Sullivan's "sleep apnea mask," looks suspiciously like a vaporizer.


*sorry, just kidding. really!

**i think mariuana should be legalized, but i also believe in equal protection (and therefore prosecution!) under the law. that's why i support gay marriage - and why slippery sullivan claims to support it as well.

TwinSwords
11-05-2009, 01:49 PM
... equal protection ...

There's no basis whatever for an equal protection complaint. The police let people caught with small amounts of marijuana go free every single day. Probably hundreds of times a day. There is also such a thing as prosecutorial discretion; not every crime that can be prosecuted is prosecuted.

nikkibong
11-05-2009, 02:13 PM
There's no basis whatever for an equal protection complaint. The police let people caught with small amounts of marijuana go free every single day. Probably hundreds of times a day. There is also such a thing as prosecutorial discretion; not every crime that can be prosecuted is prosecuted.

Twin, did you click through the link? The Cheech and Chong that the great Intellectual was hanging out with recieved citations, yet he didn't. That's not equal treatment.

Neither is the fact that, say, people with no connections (well, they have connections of a different kind!) get busted for pot routinely, which has negative consequences for a) jobs, b) education and, c) renting property. You realize that kids who have been busted for pot are forever banned from recieving government student loans, right? That is travesty.

Yet Sullivan, who has incredibly important work to do, like posting links to Madonna videos, walks away scot free. It's a mockery of justice.

As long as harmless kids are getting busted for a little harmless pot smoking, I'd like to Sullivan prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Deportation, anyone?

popcorn_karate
11-05-2009, 02:31 PM
The Cheech and Chong that the great Intellectual was hanging out with recieved citations, yet he didn't. That's not equal treatment.

Neither is the fact that, say, people with no connections (well, they connections of a different kind!) get busted for pot routinely, which has negative consequences for a) jobs, b) education and, c) renting property. You realize that kids who have been busted for pot are forever banned from recieving government student loans, right? That is travesty.


It is completely ridiculous they let him off because he is famous. it is sickening and wrong and your outrage is "spot on".

at the same time its hard for me to want to prosecute anybody for something that does not cause any harm.

tangentially, does calling him "stoner sullivan" do much to advance your position? I think it may detract from the real issue (unequal justice) and focus people on the fact that his crime is not something most people care about anyway.

nikkibong
11-05-2009, 02:38 PM
It is completely ridiculous they let him off because he is famous. it is sickening and wrong and your outrage is "spot on".

at the same time its hard for me to want to prosecute anybody for something that does not cause any harm.

tangentially, does calling him "stoner sullivan" do much to advance your position? I think it may detract from the real issue (unequal justice) and focus people on the fact that his crime is not something most people care about anyway.

Thanks for the support, and yes, I may be seeing this through my own Purple Haze of Sullivan Scorn. So, I'll drop "Stoner Sullivan." You're right, the optics of the term are all wrong: Lord knows, I have no problem with pot smoking. The issue is entitlement and unequal justice.

Perhaps he just has a really good lawyer (from what I can gather, bjkeefe is his lawyer), but it seems pretty clear that Sullivan got off because he's "famous." Like you, I find it sickening.

look
11-18-2009, 12:04 PM
The widely read blogger and purveyor of all truth, Andrew Sullivan, was impelled to blog 17 times on the subject of Palin on the same day Americans learned that the Obama administration had awarded $6.7 billion in stimulus money to nonexistent congressional districts -- which did not merit a single mention. To see what is in front of one's nose demands a constant struggle, I guess.

http://http://www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=noad
(Scroll down to "The Palin Experience.")

nikkibong
11-18-2009, 12:07 PM
http://http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/18/the_palin_experience_99201.html

Many thanks for your contribution, but you put an extra "http" in the link. Please fix, so as to maximize the amount of people who realize what a fraud Sullivan is!

bjkeefe
11-18-2009, 12:23 PM
Many thanks for your contribution, but you put an extra "http" in the link. Please fix, so as to maximize the amount of people who realize what a fraud Sullivan is!

Might want to check the facts on this yourself, nikki, rather than taking the word of a couple of wingnuts as an excuse to start playing your old broken record. It's a non-story (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853). Big deal, people put the wrong number in a form because they don't know what number Congressional district they live in.

I think you'd be better off hyperventilating about Very Important Stuff, like Obama's bowing in Japan, and why Andrew Sullivan hasn't been deported for allowing that to happen.

look
11-18-2009, 12:44 PM
Many thanks for your contribution, but you put an extra "http" in the link. Please fix, so as to maximize the amount of people who realize what a fraud Sullivan is!Tried to fix the link, but it keeps coming up double, and I'm not sure which part to delete. See my 'fix.'

TwinSwords
11-18-2009, 06:59 PM
It's a non-story (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853).

By which you mean "it's a lie."

Thank you for correcting the lie passed on by the all too credulous look.

nikkibong
11-19-2009, 01:11 PM
http://www.newser.com/story/74344/sullivan-silences-atlantic-blog-to-dissect-palin-book.html

The good news: someone has finally managed to "silence" Sullivan.

BTW: does anyone else find it, er, telling, that Sullivan always focuses his loathing (and it is definitely loathing) on women? (HRC, Palin)

Lyle
11-19-2009, 01:19 PM
Someone working for the government typed in the wrong numbers. So what are you talking about?

bjkeefe
11-19-2009, 01:53 PM
http://www.newser.com/story/74344/sullivan-silences-atlantic-blog-to-dissect-palin-book.html

The good news: someone has finally managed to "silence" Sullivan.

Have a lesson in snark (http://wonkette.com/412280/proportionate-responses-this-is-only-the-second-time-in-its-nearly-ten-year-history-that-the-dish-has-gone-silent).

BTW: does anyone else find it, er, telling, that Sullivan always focuses his loathing (and it is definitely loathing) on women? (HRC, Palin)

Why are you calling (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/awards.html) Hugh Hewitt, Nicholas von Hoffman, and Michael Moore women? Not to mention Dick Cheney and George W. Bush?

Also (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/dont-feed-the-trolls.html#more):

Does examining her make me look obsessed? Does not examining her make me look cool? Who gives a fuck?

Lyle
11-19-2009, 02:14 PM
Do you ever practice what you preach bjkeefe? You might want to try your own advice out first before dishing it out to others.

He doesn't like Andrew. Get it?

bjkeefe
11-19-2009, 02:17 PM
He doesn't like Andrew. Get it?

You're just now figuring this out?

bjkeefe
11-19-2009, 02:34 PM
Have a lesson in snark (http://wonkette.com/412280/proportionate-responses-this-is-only-the-second-time-in-its-nearly-ten-year-history-that-the-dish-has-gone-silent).

And another (http://twitter.com/edroso/status/5863749414).

look
11-19-2009, 02:49 PM
http://www.newser.com/story/74344/sullivan-silences-atlantic-blog-to-dissect-palin-book.html

The good news: someone has finally managed to "silence" Sullivan.

BTW: does anyone else find it, er, telling, that Sullivan always focuses his loathing (and it is definitely loathing) on women? (HRC, Palin)Andrew's concentrating!

nikkibong
12-14-2009, 09:02 PM
The truth comes out:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/minding-the-store.html

So Sullivan has ghostwriters.

He's been misrepresenting much of his Atlantic "work" - claiming he produces what we now know he doesn't.

Why is this not more of a scandal?

claymisher
12-14-2009, 09:24 PM
The truth comes out:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/minding-the-store.html

So Sullivan has ghostwriters.

He's been misrepresenting much of his Atlantic "work" - claiming he produces what we now know he doesn't.

Why is this not more of a scandal?

I thought everybody knew this already. Nobody (except Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias) can post that much.

Lyle
12-15-2009, 12:24 AM
This has been the case for awhile though. Not really a revelation. So, I agree with claymisher.

Whatfur
12-15-2009, 09:50 AM
This has been the case for awhile though. Not really a revelation. So, I agree with claymisher.

Didn't you at one time speak of having some personal communication with Sullivan at one time(or at least you thought so ;o) )...so you and claymasher...may be a bit closer to the story.

So yeah, daily readers of the dish may not find this to be a "revelation" but it probably is to the casual readers...not to mention that the way it is delved out here almost seems like a half-confession, half-trying to make it sound like it is not really news ...under the cover of...email me now, your chances are still nill but better.

graz
12-15-2009, 10:33 AM
So yeah, daily readers of the dish may not find this to be a "revelation" but it probably is to the casual readers...not to mention that the way it is delved out here almost seems like a half-confession, half-trying to make it sound like it is not really news ...under the cover of...email me now, your chances are still nill but better.

Just highlighted the word dish to contrast it with delve. You dish out as Sullivan and assistants always have (on record), and you delve into (as opposed to the less than superficial treatment -or 'furpinion only- you've offered here, which is typical). Otherwise, your word salad tastes gibberishly... mmm, Palinesque even.

Whatfur
12-15-2009, 10:47 AM
Just highlighted the word dish to contrast it with delve. You dish out as Sullivan and assistants always have (on record), and you delve into (as opposed to the less than superficial treatment -or 'furpinion only- you've offered here, which is typical). Otherwise, your word salad tastes gibberishly... mmm, Palinesque even.

The Fur Troll slides out from under his rock and offers a belching of words far more akin to gibberish than anything Fur said. Trolls do that.

kezboard
12-15-2009, 12:43 PM
Uh, his point is that there's no such phrasal verb as "delve out". You delve into Andrew Sullivan's blog (if you really want to), but it's the ghostwriters who are dishing everything out, which is why the blog is called "The Daily Dish".

graz
12-15-2009, 03:23 PM
... than anything Fur said...

Well good thing my computer doesn't have smell-evision, cause that turd you sent to me via pm was rank. Was the one you sent to Simon any sweeter?:

I seem to remember an incident that included threats by pm. How about you? (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=142973&postcount=12)

Whatfur
12-15-2009, 03:31 PM
Well good thing my computer doesn't have smell-evision, cause that turd you sent to me via pm was rank. Was the one you sent to Simon any sweeter?:

I seem to remember an incident that included threats by pm. How about you? (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=142973&postcount=12)

Ahhh...I guess the Fur Troll doesn't take well to mirrors.

nikkibong
12-31-2009, 03:22 PM
Sullivan is feeling the pain from Balloon Juice.

Go John, Go!

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=31960

Lyle
12-31-2009, 06:37 PM
He posted one of my e-mails on his blog once, and he responded to a number of e-mails I sent him. This was a few years ago though. I haven't e-mailed him in a while.

Regular readers (I'm not as regular as I once was) know he dipped in and out of actually blogging. He would just say hey, so and so is taking over, I'll be back on Monday, or some such. Normally they posted under their own name (perhaps, initially they didn't though, I can't remember). From about that time, these other writers became much more regular, and now seem to be permanent. He's constantly doing whatever he wants, which is fine by me. I don't really care if he's got help or doesn't.

Single person blogs are arguably more genuine though.

graz
12-31-2009, 10:29 PM
A little piling on for you nikkibong:
Do you dig the Sully reference? (http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/2009/12/worst-news-of-past-two-days-of-decade.html)

nikkibong
01-01-2010, 01:14 PM
A little piling on for you nikkibong:
Do you dig the Sully reference? (http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/2009/12/worst-news-of-past-two-days-of-decade.html)

did I dig it? I wanted to shout it from the rooftops!

Finally, someone remembers what a prick Sullivan (was) and still is!

Happy new year.

nikkibong
02-09-2010, 12:10 PM
Wieseltier ratchets things up today. (http://www.tnr.com/article/something-much-darker)

"Money quote," as the Oracle would say:

Sullivan is hunting for motives, not reasons; for conspiracies, which is the surest sign of a mind’s bankruptcy. These days the self-congratulatory motto above his blog is “Of No Party or Clique,” but in fact Sullivan belongs to the party of Mearsheimer and the clique of Walt (whom he cites frequently and deferentially), to the herd of fearless dissidents who proclaim in all seriousness, without in any way being haunted by the history of such an idea, that Jews control Washington.

I think Wieseltier would have been best served by stopping after the first sentence, the one that I bolded -- this is an apt description of the way Sullivan's "mind" works.

Overall, I think Wiesltier's crie de coeur takes Sullivan far too seriously. After all, Andrew is little more than a Sarah Palin gossip blogger at this point...less substantive than the proprietor of Kausfiles.

Anyway, at least *someone* in authority is willing to call a fool a fool.

AemJeff
02-09-2010, 12:26 PM
Wieseltier ratchets things up today. (http://www.tnr.com/article/something-much-darker)

"Money quote," as the Oracle would say:

Sullivan is hunting for motives, not reasons; for conspiracies, which is the surest sign of a mind’s bankruptcy. These days the self-congratulatory motto above his blog is “Of No Party or Clique,” but in fact Sullivan belongs to the party of Mearsheimer and the clique of Walt (whom he cites frequently and deferentially), to the herd of fearless dissidents who proclaim in all seriousness, without in any way being haunted by the history of such an idea, that Jews control Washington.

I think Wieseltier would have been best served by stopping after the first sentence, the one that I bolded -- this is an apt description of the way Sullivan's "mind" works.

Overall, I think Wiesltier's crie de coeur takes Sullivan far too seriously. After all, Andrew is little more than a Sarah Palin gossip blogger at this point...less substantive than the proprietor of Kausfiles.

Anyway, at least *someone* in authority is willing to call a fool a fool.

I think the cartoonish disparagement of Mearsheimer and Walt is a pretty good indicator of the degree of seriousness with which this (and most of Wieseltier's output.) You're right he should have stopped while he was ahead - but he didn't, and, more to the point, predictably wouldn't have.

nikkibong
02-09-2010, 12:42 PM
I think the cartoonish disparagement of Mearsheimer and Walt is a pretty good indicator of the degree of seriousness with which this (and most of Wieseltier's output.) You're right he should have stopped while he was ahead - but he didn't, and, more to the point, predictably wouldn't have.

that's all well and good, jeff, but please stay on point. this thread is about how SULLIVAN sucks.

thanks.

uncle ebeneezer
02-09-2010, 01:13 PM
Yes, but TNR/Wiesetler's history should be kept in mind. (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/02/wieseltier-vs-sullivan.php)

claymisher
02-09-2010, 01:50 PM
Yes, but TNR/Wiesetler's history should be kept in mind. (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/02/wieseltier-vs-sullivan.php)

These guys are in a two-way tie for last place.

AemJeff
02-09-2010, 01:51 PM
that's all well and good, jeff, but please stay on point. this thread is about how SULLIVAN sucks.

thanks.

I'm not a huge fan of Sully's, though my attitude is essentially "meh." I actively dislike Wiesetler. You chose the terms of the debate here, dude. Where that'll lead us is hard to predict. :)

bjkeefe
02-09-2010, 02:56 PM
Yes, but TNR/Wiesetler's history should be kept in mind. (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/02/wieseltier-vs-sullivan.php)

Wow. I don't know much about Wieseltier, but if Matt's post is even close, it looks like nikkibong is hitching his wagon to a particularly dim star.

I was going to say brown dwarf, but then one of those two would probably call me racist. And heightist.

Lyle
02-09-2010, 04:01 PM
*someone* in authority... what the fuck doest that mean? There are journalists who have *authority* (say it as Cartman says it)?

I agree that Andrew has lost it, but he's no Hebrew Hater... which is what is being suggested by the *authority*.

kezboard
02-09-2010, 04:30 PM
What the hell was that whole thing at the beginning about W.H. Auden? Was Wieseltier suggesting that Sullivan was making an anti-semitic remark by suggesting that the reason the readers of the New Republic don't understand the Trinity is because they're all Jews? Seriously? I agree with the criticism of Sullivan that he presents feelings as arguments, but this essay is just Wieseltier doing the same thing. Is this what American public intellectual-dom has come to? Jesus wept.

bjkeefe
02-09-2010, 05:42 PM
Wieseltier ratchets things up today. (http://www.tnr.com/article/something-much-darker)

Jim Newell (http://wonkette.com/413618/413618)'s advice:

TODAY’S MOST IMPORTANT QUICK READ: A 4,200-word pretentious, Roman-numeral-subsectioned screed (http://www.tnr.com/article/something-much-darker) from the “Dick Cheney of TNR,” Leon Wieseltier, about how Andrew “He Links To Some Good Stuff” Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/the-latest-from-leon.html) hates Jews for being so Jewish, those rotten Jews. What, you don’t want to read this? Meh, just click on this Pareene thing (http://gawker.com/5467819/hooray-the-new-republic-has-decided-someone-is-an-antisemite) instead.

Do that. (http://gawker.com/5467819/hooray-the-new-republic-has-decided-someone-is-an-antisemite)

kezboard
02-09-2010, 09:59 PM
Wow. I'd never seen a picture of Leon Wieseltier before. Impressive hair! It looks like George Washington's wig. My respect for him is increased.

bjkeefe
02-10-2010, 02:24 AM
Wow. I'd never seen a picture of Leon Wieseltier before. Impressive hair! It looks like George Washington's wig. My respect for him is increased.

Heh. Yes, that is some mane, isn't it?

You think Wieseltier has wooden teeth, too?

bjkeefe
02-10-2010, 05:57 AM
Wieseltier ratchets things up today. (http://www.tnr.com/article/something-much-darker)

Daniel Larison (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/02/09/another-pathetic-denunciation/) has some thoughts on this, which conclude:

As denunciations go, Wieseltier’s is probably the most intellectually sloppy, shabby one I have seen since the days before the invasion of Iraq.

look
02-24-2010, 02:53 AM
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=151869&postcount=4

bjkeefe
02-24-2010, 03:16 AM
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=151869&postcount=4

Who is this Sully Sycophant of which you speak? Sarah Palin?

You did bother to click the links under the picture before you starting typing away in your endless and pointless fury, didn't you?

Oh, you didn't?

I see.

look
02-24-2010, 08:59 AM
Who is this Sully Sycophant of which you speak? Sarah Palin?

You did bother to click the links under the picture before you starting typing away in your endless and pointless fury, didn't you?

Oh, you didn't?

I see. I read links before I post. Can you think of any reason your post was Sullyesque, mean-spirited, and in poor taste? Oh, I see, since his mom posted the picture, you're free to provide access to the hi-larious comments it received. You're a sly one...and the Negro dialect thing, too funny.

bjkeefe
02-24-2010, 12:08 PM
You're a sly one...and the Negro dialect thing, too funny.

Thanks.

nikkibong
03-12-2010, 03:35 PM
I'll use Clive Crook of the FT instead of Wieseltier to bludgeon Sullivan today.

Great post (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/a-pointer-for-andrew-sullivan/37231/) from Crook, on Sullivan's sloppiness and histrionics. (All the better that Crook's piece was on the Atlantic's website!)

"Money quote," as Sullivan's ghost bloggers would put it:

Andrew, by the way, accuses me of peddling the conventional wisdom on all this. Characteristically, he is also incredulous that I am at odds with countless other commentators and (if I read him correctly) both halves of the blogosphere.

Andrew, allow me to give you a pointer here. If you are going to accuse somebody of peddling the conventional wisdom, you cannot also express astonishment at his failure to grasp what everybody else is saying. It really must be one or the other. The conventional wisdom might be right or wrong, but it has to be, you know, conventional. Just a suggestion for next time.

There are some great comments, too:

from outback71
Sully 's act is the same as it's always been, hurl withering invective at anyone who disagrees. It's at times amusing, but rarely intellectually engaging....but it gets Sully page views which pays the bills.

fromjackdeath (i love this one)
No, no, no Clive, you've got Mr. Sullivan all wrong. He thinks President Obama is a Wile E. Coyote-like super genious that has a master rope-a-dope strategy in mind for all things, at all times. There are no contingencies, it is all pre-ordained you see. Virgina and New Jersey - all part of the plan. A year long hair-pulling contest among the Dems in the Congress without any committment to a firm legislative agenda from the White House - just as he expected! Scott Brown - a masterstroke by the Democrat in chief!!

As Pee-Wee Herman once explained so eloquently - "I meant to do that!" This is Sully's take on everything Obama.
Flag

from maximbitter
Mr. Sullivan has been preparing for a debut in a reality series for some time now. Pointless arguments, drama, theatrical gestures...the whole package MTV is looking for. As they say on TV, "What's up with Andrew?" He's just right for the surprise cast member of Jersey Shore 2010, but he's dragging down the Atlantic's admirable effort to host a forum for people who believe in the life of the mind. Clive's cool, however, even though he saves his best for the FT. Why does he do that? The FT as a paper is just a giant watch advertisement.

Go Clive!

And do read the post
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/a-pointer-for-andrew-sullivan/37231/

claymisher
03-12-2010, 04:04 PM
DeLong vs Crook: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/12/in-which-clive-crook-carries-water-for-the-republican-hyenas.html

bjkeefe
03-12-2010, 06:48 PM
I'll use Clive Crook of the FT instead of Wieseltier to bludgeon Sullivan today.

Coming up next: nikkibong uses The Weekly Standard to "prove (http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/imagecache/cover-sidebar/magazines/coverimages/WStandard.15-25.Mar15.jpg)" global warming is a hoax.

bjkeefe
03-17-2010, 06:44 PM
... uses The Weekly Standard to "prove (http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/imagecache/cover-sidebar/magazines/coverimages/WStandard.15-25.Mar15.jpg)" global warming is a hoax.

Whoa, hey, lookahere (http://wonkette.com/414274/jim-inhofe-now-showing-gay-al-gore-drawings-on-senate-floor)! No one could have predicted we'd see that cover again!

nikkibong
04-20-2010, 04:01 PM
then again...i would have to support palin for the same reason

http://www.zazzle.com/pop_goes_the_sully_tshirt-235022479440698299

nikkibong
05-11-2010, 05:32 PM
So apparently Sullivan's misogyny is acting up again, and he's on a huge tear trying to "out" Elena Kagan. (balloon juice has details here: http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/05/11/thats-jaws-you-just-jumped-there/)

Sullivan points (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/google-autocomplete.html) to google's auto complete feature as a reason to keep his witchhunt going:

A reader notes:

elena kagan husband
elena kagan personal life
elena kagan married
elena kagan solicitor general
elena kagan bio
elena kagan supreme court

What happens when we put Andrew Sullivan into the google auto complete?

Just inputting Andrew Sullivan, we get the first attachment. Pretty normal stuff.

But check out what happens when you input "Andrew Sullivan Is"

That's attatchment #2.

Conclusive proof! Teh google is spoken. Andrew sullivan is either a fraud or an idiot!

ledocs
05-23-2010, 05:13 PM
These guys [sc. Sullivan and Weiseltier] are in a two-way tie for last place.


My thoughts, exactly. I don't read either of them, except when they are cited here.

I liked what I saw of the blog of doghouseriley, though. Great photos on the left side of the page.

nikkibong
06-14-2010, 11:52 AM
Chait The Great was too generous...I would have put thinking in scare quotes

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/75531/andrew-sullivans-binary-thinking

Oh so true:

Through his switch from ulta Israel hawk to ultra Israel dove, the one constant has been an insistence upon binary thinking. Before, anybody who disagreed with him was making excuses for anti-Semitic terrorism. Now anybody who disagrees with him is making excuses for Avigdor Lieberman.

nikkibong
06-28-2010, 06:37 PM
On Robert Byrd:

Speak no ill of the dead? Well, let me simply say that the racist, populist, larcenous bigot of a Senator - a man who robbed the American tax-payer to pave his state with baubles and bribes - is not going to be much mourned in these parts. - Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/06/thoughts-on-byrd.html), 6/28/10

(via New York Mag (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/06/andrew_sullivan_mourns_robert.html) -- no way in hell was i reading sullivan's blog on my own!)

bjkeefe
06-28-2010, 07:18 PM
On Robert Byrd:

Speak no ill of the dead? Well, let me simply say that the racist, populist, larcenous bigot of a Senator - a man who robbed the American tax-payer to pave his state with baubles and bribes - is not going to be much mourned in these parts. - Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/06/thoughts-on-byrd.html), 6/28/10

(via New York Mag (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/06/andrew_sullivan_mourns_robert.html) -- no way in hell was i reading sullivan's blog on my own!)

It's sad to see Sully made the same mistake (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=167342#post167342) so many wingnuts did, in ignoring the growth Byrd showed on the race issue.

But to his credit, he did publish three dissents of the day (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/06/dissents-of-the-day-3.html) and also put up a post which highlighted a Byrd positive (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/06/for-the-record.html), at the slight additional cost of reminding people of something else he (Sully) has to be embarrassed about.

==========

P.S. I know this is your pet object of hate, but as a general matter, I think a good journalist would have done a little checking before posting what you did, even if he had to hold his nose while doing it.

nikkibong
09-22-2010, 08:04 PM
balloon juice versus sullivan. ok, it's almost ugly to watch: fish in a barrel, harlem globe trotters versus washington generals kind of material.

but: my god, it's hilarious.

enjoy:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/09/22/obtuse-angle/

cole's headline here is brilliant:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/09/22/im-so-mad-at-the-american-strategy-to-win-wwii-that-im-joining-the-ss/

Lyle
09-23-2010, 01:36 PM
Cole's headline is funny, but not at all fair. Fairer to have written , "I'm So Mad At The American Strategy to Win WWII That I’m Joining the Republicans!".

Dick Cheney is even to the Left of Obama on gay marriage. Oh, the non-conformity!!!

look
09-23-2010, 01:42 PM
balloon juice versus sullivan. ok, it's almost ugly to watch: fish in a barrel, harlem globe trotters versus washington generals kind of material.

but: my god, it's hilarious.

enjoy:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/09/22/obtuse-angle/

cole's headline here is brilliant:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/09/22/im-so-mad-at-the-american-strategy-to-win-wwii-that-im-joining-the-ss/Silly Sully, what will that madcap hooligan come up with next?

nikkibong
09-23-2010, 01:45 PM
Silly Sully, what will that madcap hooligan come up with next?

This is assuming he actually wrote what appeared under his name...it could have been any of his wage slave, er, "associate editors." We know it wasn't friedersdorf...he would have called her "Ms. Angle."

look
09-23-2010, 01:48 PM
This is assuming he actually wrote what appeared under his name...it could have been any of his wage slave, er, "associate editors." We know it wasn't friedersdorf...he would have called her "Ms. Angle."True, but I'm assuming his juniors are more circumspect than he.

nikkibong
09-23-2010, 01:49 PM
True, but I'm assuming his juniors are more circumspect than he.

maybe his brain isn't getting enough oxygen?

http://www.bearotic.com/img/2008/02/cpap002.jpg

look
09-23-2010, 01:55 PM
maybe his brain isn't getting enough oxygen?

http://www.bearotic.com/img/2008/02/cpap002.jpgPlease don't post that pic without appropriate labeling in the post title.

nikkibong
10-11-2010, 01:59 PM
andrew sullivan on the greatness that is andrew sullivan:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

to call him a narcissist would be an insult to narcissus. the most hilarious thought is that of conor "i wish i were andrew sullivan" friedersdorf feverishly compiling the hagiographies in an attempt to make his boss (and idol) happy.

look
10-11-2010, 02:02 PM
andrew sullivan on the greatness that is andrew sullivan:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

to call him a narcissist would be an insult to narcissus. the most hilarious thought is that of conor "i wish i were andrew sullivan" friedersdorf feverishly compiling the hagiographies in an attempt to make his boss (and idol) happy.How about some 'best of' paragraphs for those of us who refuse to click through...and have weak stomachs.

nikkibong
10-11-2010, 02:05 PM
How about some 'best of' paragraphs for those of us who refuse to click through...and have weak stomachs.

Quite possibly he is the single most influential blogger of them all." - tyler cowen

"I learned how to blog from reading Andrew. " - ben smith

"As an outsider looking in, I am very grateful for your blog’s existence. Yours is a sane voice in the midst of all-too-pervasive hysteria, and a sane conservative voice, which as someone to the left, I welcome with all my heart. " - some anonymous butt boy

"Why I love Sullivan: It's simple. Any fan of evidence-based policy is on the good team. Why I hate Sullivan: That's simple too. He sniffs out so much of interest each day that reading him dramatically lowers my own blogging productivity. I come for the Dish and stay for the full-on, news-you-can-use, feeding frenzy. Keep it flowing, Andrew!" - some guy named austrin frakt.

and it goes on and on and on and on.

look
10-11-2010, 02:27 PM
Quite possibly he is the single most influential blogger of them all." - tyler cowen

"I learned how to blog from reading Andrew. " - ben smith

"As an outsider looking in, I am very grateful for your blog’s existence. Yours is a sane voice in the midst of all-too-pervasive hysteria, and a sane conservative voice, which as someone to the left, I welcome with all my heart. " - some anonymous butt boy

"Why I love Sullivan: It's simple. Any fan of evidence-based policy is on the good team. Why I hate Sullivan: That's simple too. He sniffs out so much of interest each day that reading him dramatically lowers my own blogging productivity. I come for the Dish and stay for the full-on, news-you-can-use, feeding frenzy. Keep it flowing, Andrew!" - some guy named austrin frakt.

and it goes on and on and on and on.Quite possibly he is the single most influential blogger of them all." - tyler cowen

That's quite a statement coming from someone divorced from emotional narrative.

nikkibong
10-11-2010, 02:34 PM
Quite possibly he is the single most influential blogger of them all." - tyler cowen

That's quite a statement coming from someone divorced from emotional narrative.

let's play a game. (for those people who refuse to click through to sullivan's site. i salute you, btw.)

pick out the quote that is NOT from sullivan's blog today:

a. "Andrew was ferociously argumentative, and sometimes wrong (who isn't sometimes?), he was also a wonderful, charming, hilarious, mellow, and generous person. A wonderful, charming, etc., person who just so happened to be doing more to advance the cause of gay civil equality than anyone else in the country."

b. "But it has been a mighty fine ten years: sometimes bafflingly perverse, often exasperating, frequently enraging but always stimulating, interesting, amusing, entertaining, trend setting and, above all, worth reading."

c. "He may have the skills of the master of reasoning. They are however only tools he uses as a true rhetorical virtuoso. He has abilities not found in the reasoning speaker. He combines clear diction with simple argumentation, and instinct tells him what to say and how to say it. Language is united with ideas."

d. "Why I love Sully: he's the blogger's blogger. I trust his opinion, and his take on things, more than any others'."

Bonus points if you can identify the speaker of the non-sullivan quote -- and who it actually refers to.

nikkibong
10-11-2010, 06:25 PM
let's play a game. (for those people who refuse to click through to sullivan's site. i salute you, btw.)

pick out the quote that is NOT from sullivan's blog today:

a. "Andrew was ferociously argumentative, and sometimes wrong (who isn't sometimes?), he was also a wonderful, charming, hilarious, mellow, and generous person. A wonderful, charming, etc., person who just so happened to be doing more to advance the cause of gay civil equality than anyone else in the country."

b. "But it has been a mighty fine ten years: sometimes bafflingly perverse, often exasperating, frequently enraging but always stimulating, interesting, amusing, entertaining, trend setting and, above all, worth reading."

c. "He may have the skills of the master of reasoning. They are however only tools he uses as a true rhetorical virtuoso. He has abilities not found in the reasoning speaker. He combines clear diction with simple argumentation, and instinct tells him what to say and how to say it. Language is united with ideas."

d. "Why I love Sully: he's the blogger's blogger. I trust his opinion, and his take on things, more than any others'."

Bonus points if you can identify the speaker of the non-sullivan quote -- and who it actually refers to.

nobody man enough (to put it in terms sexist sullivan would approve of?) to attempt this quiz?

Don Zeko
10-11-2010, 06:43 PM
I'll try C, and guess that it refers to Christopher Hitchens.

TwinSwords
10-11-2010, 07:33 PM
I'll try C, and guess that it refers to Christopher Hitchens.

I thought the exact the same. (And was wrong.)

nikkibong
10-11-2010, 07:59 PM
I thought the exact the same. (And was wrong.)

heh. did you google it, twin?

TwinSwords
10-11-2010, 08:03 PM
heh. did you google it, twin?

I did, after guessing Hitch. :-)

Don Zeko
10-12-2010, 01:51 AM
Having googled it myself, I think you may need to consider a comparison, Nikki. You know how Sullivan's conspiracy theories about Trig's parentage are so obnoxious that you almost find yourself feeling sympathy for Sarah Palin? Well it seems possible that you might get a similar attitude towards Sullivan if you let him have it too much. Be careful out there.

chiwhisoxx
10-12-2010, 02:38 AM
Having googled it myself, I think you may need to consider a comparison, Nikki. You know how Sullivan's conspiracy theories about Trig's parentage are so obnoxious that you almost find yourself feeling sympathy for Sarah Palin? Well it seems possible that you might get a similar attitude towards Sullivan if you let him have it too much. Be careful out there.

except, people would only begin to feel sympathy for Palin because Sullivan's claims are unfounded, ridiculous, and laughable at this point. People aren't going to feel the same sympathies for Sullivan because the critiques of him are actually valid.

Don Zeko
10-12-2010, 02:45 AM
except, people would only begin to feel sympathy for Palin because Sullivan's claims are unfounded, ridiculous, and laughable at this point. People aren't going to feel the same sympathies for Sullivan because the critiques of him are actually valid.

I was being facetious and Nikki snuck a Hitler reference in there.

look
10-12-2010, 05:50 PM
let's play a game. (for those people who refuse to click through to sullivan's site. i salute you, btw.)

pick out the quote that is NOT from sullivan's blog today:

a. "Andrew was ferociously argumentative, and sometimes wrong (who isn't sometimes?), he was also a wonderful, charming, hilarious, mellow, and generous person. A wonderful, charming, etc., person who just so happened to be doing more to advance the cause of gay civil equality than anyone else in the country."

b. "But it has been a mighty fine ten years: sometimes bafflingly perverse, often exasperating, frequently enraging but always stimulating, interesting, amusing, entertaining, trend setting and, above all, worth reading."

c. "He may have the skills of the master of reasoning. They are however only tools he uses as a true rhetorical virtuoso. He has abilities not found in the reasoning speaker. He combines clear diction with simple argumentation, and instinct tells him what to say and how to say it. Language is united with ideas."

d. "Why I love Sully: he's the blogger's blogger. I trust his opinion, and his take on things, more than any others'."

Bonus points if you can identify the speaker of the non-sullivan quote -- and who it actually refers to.b. "But it has been a mighty fine ten years: sometimes bafflingly perverse, often exasperating, frequently enraging but always stimulating, interesting, amusing, entertaining, trend setting and, above all, worth reading."

Michael Kinsley on Mickey Kaus?

nikkibong
10-12-2010, 10:30 PM
b. "But it has been a mighty fine ten years: sometimes bafflingly perverse, often exasperating, frequently enraging but always stimulating, interesting, amusing, entertaining, trend setting and, above all, worth reading."

Michael Kinsley on Mickey Kaus?

wrong and wrong!

the answer was c: joseph goebbels on one adolf hitler!

look
10-12-2010, 10:34 PM
wrong and wrong!

the answer was c: joseph goebbels on one adolf hitler!lol I was just considering what toady might have said that about Newt.

Thanks for the puzzle!

And I guess Kinsley wouldn't have used the phrase 'mighty fine.' ;)

rcocean
10-13-2010, 10:17 PM
wrong and wrong!

the answer was c: joseph goebbels on one adolf hitler!

Are you sure? I believe Sully has the written similar stuff about Obama and George Bush**

** = before Sully discovered he was evil. The line between goodhearted genius and evil is a narrow one in Sully's world.

TwinSwords
10-14-2010, 12:06 PM
... Sully discovered [Obama] was evil.

This is a ridiculous mischaracterization of Sullivan's opinion of Obama. Here's what Sullivan said today (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/10/the-be.html):

... I still believe, despite my frustrations in some areas, that Obama is the best option we've got and we're lucky to have him. I want a president who can acknowledge error, is not cocooned, can speak publicly about this, and is unafraid of self-criticism. Isn't that why so many of us supported him in the first place?

And, look, another reason we supported him is that after eight years of Rove, we actually wanted a president who got the policy right. I think his success in this is quite remarkable, in fact.

Preventing a second Great Depression, which was a real possibility (and not just the jobless recovery we're in, but a full-scale collapse), rescuing the banks without nationalizing them, saving the auto-companies with precision and technocratic skill (I didn't think it would work at all, and it did), re-setting relations with the rest of the world, bringing a new sanity and balance to Middle East policy, taking out 400 al Qaeda operatives, using the myth of the surge to get the hell out of Iraq (for the most part), upping the ante to get a deal with the Taliban and enacting a centrist, moderate law that for the first time in history ensures that anyone can get health insurance in this country ... really, in perspective, pretty damn remarkable.

Politically, he had to deal with a GOP gone insane, and a propaganda machine of such virulence and relentlessness that you can see he is where he is. But although he is right that he lost the connection to us, his supporters, I don't think he could have kept up the hope and change inspiration indefinitely.

He would rightly have been ridiculed for not being serious at governing, of being all words and no action, of all hat and no battle.

And where he is politically is really not that bad anyway - doing better than Clinton or Carter at this point, and better than Reagan, whose polling trajectory he still follows the most closely of recent presidents. The man's favorables are still 47 percent in a recession - way ahead of his competitors on the right; his approval rate is not far behind with unemployment at record highs; if and when the GOP take back the Congress, their talk radio schtick will have to face the reality of governing's hard choices. And in that battle for the center, I'd bet on Obama's reason and calm over Gingrich's flame wars, Palin's delusions and Boehner's corporate tan.

If I were buying stock right now, I'd say the president is under-priced.

nikkibong
10-14-2010, 12:36 PM
twin -- i'm certain that rc meant that sullivan discovered that bush was evil, not obama.

rcocean
10-14-2010, 01:03 PM
twin -- i'm certain that rc meant that sullivan discovered that bush was evil, not obama.

I guess if you worked really hard at it - and knew nothing about sullivan - you *might* think I was talking about Obama.

Or maybe Twin was just speed-reading and going too fast.

nikkibong
12-01-2010, 06:44 PM
It's no exaggeration to say that the Atlantic Monthly is one of the most esteemed organs in American letters.

Founded by an elite coterie that included Harriet Beecher Stowe, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and others, for one hundred and fifty years, it has represented the highest standards of American journalism, literary criticism, and fiction.

Emily Dickinson's work appeared in the Atlantic. So did Mark Twain's. It was in its pages that Martin Luther King's Letter From a Birmingham Jail first appeared.

I happened upon theatlantic.com a few minutes ago, to have a look at the page of a worthy heir to the Atlantic's tradition of excellence, the fine journalist James Fallows.

And what do I see on the website of the magazine that published Emerson, Dickinson and King?

See the attached screen shot.

Why is this putz permitted to continue "sullying" the reputation of this once great institution?

TwinSwords
12-01-2010, 07:28 PM
It's no exaggeration to say that the Atlantic Monthly is one of the most esteemed organs in American letters.

Founded by an elite coterie that included Harriet Beecher Stowe, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and others, for one hundred and fifty years, it has represented the highest standards of American journalism, literary criticism, and fiction.

Emily Dickinson's work appeared in the Atlantic. So did Mark Twain's. It was in its pages that Martin Luther King's Letter From a Birmingham Jail first appeared.

I happened upon theatlantic.com a few minutes ago, to have a look at the page of a worthy heir to the Atlantic's tradition of excellence, the fine journalist James Fallows.

And what do I see on the website of the magazine that published Emerson, Dickinson and King?

See the attached screen shot.

Why is this putz permitted to continue "sullying" the reputation of this once great institution?

You don't think Twain would have used a word like "dickishness?" I'm sure he would have.

I appreciate your point of view, NB, even though I don't share it. But speaking for myself, I'm glad that as this country is dragged to the bottom of the sea by an army of deranged psychopaths, there are at least a few people, like Andrew Sullivan, willing to document the atrocities as they occur.

We probably won't be able to save the country from the GOP, but for posterity's sake, it's good that we have a few scribes to record what is happening as it unfolds.

Personally, I wish you cared more about substance than style. While the nation is in the process of being ruined, you focus on trivialities -- like the use of the word "dickish," or the fact that Brendan will praise Weigel for saying one thing, and then turn around and showing perfect consistency, criticize him for saying something else.

There is so much happening in this country that is important, indeed critical, to the lives of hundreds of millions of people. You (in my opinion) should focus on that.

Sullivan really nails it, here (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/the-dickishness-of-the-gop.html):

What we've observed these past two years is a political party that knows nothing but scorched earth tactics, cannot begin to see any merits in the other party's arguments, refuses to compromise one inch on anything, and has sought from the very beginning to do nothing but destroy the Obama presidency. I see no other coherent message or strategy since 2008. Just opposition to everything, zero support for a president grappling with a recession their own party did much to precipitate, and facing a fiscal crisis the GOP alone made far worse with their spending in the Bush-Cheney years. There is not a scintilla of responsibility for their past; not a sliver of good will for a duly elected president. Worse, figures like Cantor and McCain actively seek to back foreign governments against the duly elected president of their own country, and seek to repeal the signature policy achievement of Obama's first two years, universal healthcare.

I know it is the opposition's role to oppose. But the sheer scale and absolutism of the opposition, and its continuation in the lame duck session, even over such small but integral reforms such as the new START and DADT repeal, is remarkable.

The two parties are evenly spread in this 50-50 country, but only one can brook no compromise in its accelerating rush to the far right. And that is what it seems we have to contemplate for the next two years - total paralysis in the face of urgent problems as part of a game of cynical partisan brinkmanship. They simply cannot bear that another party might actually have a role to play in government.

This is not conservatism, properly understood, a disposition that respects the institutions and traditions of government, that can give as well as take, that seeks the national interest before partisan concerns, and that respects both the other branches of government and seeks to work with them. These people are not conservatives in this core civilized sense; they are partisan vandals.

And if the GOP block the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, despite the careful Pentagon study, a slow roll-out of its provisions, and support from the Joint Chiefs chairman and the defense secretary, then we will find out something else. The contempt the GOP has for gay lives, gay citizens and those who wear the uniform of the United States is as deep and as vile as we ever thought it was. Yes, I'm angry at this general nihilist partisanship, and wounded once more by these people's profound, obsessive homophobia. But I cannot, alas, say I am surprised. The degeneracy has been building for a long time. It is just the stench of it right now that overwhelms the nostrils.

Question: Does what the GOP is doing concern you?

look
12-01-2010, 08:18 PM
It's no exaggeration to say that the Atlantic Monthly is one of the most esteemed organs in American letters.

Founded by an elite coterie that included Harriet Beecher Stowe, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and others, for one hundred and fifty years, it has represented the highest standards of American journalism, literary criticism, and fiction.

Emily Dickinson's work appeared in the Atlantic. So did Mark Twain's. It was in its pages that Martin Luther King's Letter From a Birmingham Jail first appeared.

I happened upon theatlantic.com a few minutes ago, to have a look at the page of a worthy heir to the Atlantic's tradition of excellence, the fine journalist James Fallows.

And what do I see on the website of the magazine that published Emerson, Dickinson and King?

See the attached screen shot.

Why is this putz permitted to continue "sullying" the reputation of this once great institution?The Atlantic, too, shall pass.

My god, Sully is a schlub.

nikkibong
12-02-2010, 03:08 PM
...

does it occur to you that what i "focus on" here does not precisely reflect what i "focus on" in the rest of my life?

chiwhisoxx
12-02-2010, 03:58 PM
does it occur to you that what i "focus on" here does not precisely reflect what i "focus on" in the rest of my life?

!?!?!?!?! *mind explodes*

TwinSwords
12-02-2010, 06:40 PM
does it occur to you that what i "focus on" here does not precisely reflect what i "focus on" in the rest of my life?

Sure. But I wasn't talking about what I wish you would focus on in the rest of your life; I was talking about what I wish you would focus on here in the forum.

Still, I do understand and appreciate your "obsession" with Sullivan. Again, I don't share it, but I do understand it. You have good reason for hanging on to your grudge against him. As I recall, you've stated that your problems with Sullivan are (a) his casting opponents of the Iraq War as enemies of the Republic -- before he changed his mind and became an opponent of the Iraq War, and (b) his years-long promotion of white supremacy.

Frankly, those are pretty good reasons to hold a grudge.

nikkibong
12-02-2010, 06:50 PM
Sure. But I wasn't talking about what I wish you would focus on in the rest of your life; I was talking about what I wish you would focus on here in the forum.

Still, I do understand and appreciate your "obsession" with Sullivan. Again, I don't share it, but I do understand it. You have good reason for hanging on to your grudge against him. As I recall, you've stated that your problems with Sullivan are (a) his casting opponents of the Iraq War as enemies of the Republic -- before he changed his mind and became an opponent of the Iraq War, and (b) his years-long promotion of white supremacy.

Frankly, those are pretty good reasons to hold a grudge.

your memory is strong, old man. :)

thanks.

chiwhisoxx
12-02-2010, 07:30 PM
Sure. But I wasn't talking about what I wish you would focus on in the rest of your life; I was talking about what I wish you would focus on here in the forum.

Still, I do understand and appreciate your "obsession" with Sullivan. Again, I don't share it, but I do understand it. You have good reason for hanging on to your grudge against him. As I recall, you've stated that your problems with Sullivan are (a) his casting opponents of the Iraq War as enemies of the Republic -- before he changed his mind and became an opponent of the Iraq War, and (b) his years-long promotion of white supremacy.

Frankly, those are pretty good reasons to hold a grudge.

Whoa. What's that bit about Sullivan promoting white supremacy? To think I've disliked him without even knowing that bit...

nikkibong
12-02-2010, 07:49 PM
Whoa. What's that bit about Sullivan promoting white supremacy? To think I've disliked him without even knowing that bit...

chi, here is a good take on the matter:

http://www.slate.com/id/2128199/

chiwhisoxx
12-02-2010, 09:34 PM
chi, here is a good take on the matter:

http://www.slate.com/id/2128199/

Interesting.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that talking about the Bell Curve in the way he does amounts to white supremacy. But it is rather annoying the way Sullivan discusses this: the precious, self righteous, "speak truth to power" trope.

AemJeff
12-02-2010, 10:06 PM
chi, here is a good take on the matter:

http://www.slate.com/id/2128199/

That was an excellent article, nb; one I'd missed. Slate has done a lot of really good work tarnishing Murray's polished turd.

nikkibong
12-07-2010, 04:04 PM
Jonathan V Last notices (http://jonathanlast.com/2010/12/07/recession-what-recession/) that Simple Sullivan is now selling customized merchandise; t-shirts, tote bags, the like.

Utterly hilariously, a Sullivan T shirt goes for FIFTY DOLLARS. Good news for Sullivan syncophants: I can only presume that the money goes straight into Sullivan's legal defense fund so he can buy his way out again the next time he is busted for drug possession. (speaking of which, can we get someone in sweden to say that Sullivan harassed him? please?)

Do what's right: make his awful blog of No Party Or CLICK!

bjkeefe
12-07-2010, 04:10 PM
Jonathan V Last notices (http://jonathanlast.com/2010/12/07/recession-what-recession/) ...

*Chaps not included.

Classy.

Do you endorse this homophobia?

nikkibong
12-07-2010, 04:12 PM
Classy.

Do you endorse this homophobia?

isn't sullivan an avowed proponent of the bear lifestyle?

next last will point out that Sullivan likes Madonna, and you'll accuse him of "homophobia."

bjkeefe
12-07-2010, 04:21 PM
isn't sullivan an avowed proponent of the bear lifestyle?

See Edroso (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010/07/how-come-they-can-say-******-and-we.html).

chiwhisoxx
12-07-2010, 04:43 PM
See Edroso (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010/07/how-come-they-can-say-******-and-we.html).

Is the thing we're supposed to see "Page not found?" Cause that wasn't very illuminating.

bjkeefe
12-07-2010, 05:00 PM
Is the thing we're supposed to see "Page not found?" Cause that wasn't very illuminating.

Whoops. Forget the Lyle filter affects URLs, too. Thanks for the heads-up.

Try here (http://is.gd/imfRE).

popcorn_karate
12-08-2010, 02:08 PM
I can only presume that the money goes straight into Sullivan's legal defense fund so he can buy his way out again the next time he is busted for drug possession.


you know, we all get burrs under our saddle for idiosyncratic reasons, i get that. You are incensed by sully, while I'm rather sick of people vilifying pot smokers. But, of course Sully was a cheerleader for the iraq war, whereas my bong never did anything like that - so lay off her will you?

nikkibong
12-08-2010, 02:22 PM
you know, we all get burrs under our saddle for idiosyncratic reasons, i get that. You are incensed by sully, while I'm rather sick of people vilifying pot smokers. But, of course Sully was a cheerleader for the iraq war, whereas my bong never did anything like that - so lay off her will you?

"duuuuuuude"

i'm merely pointing out that sullivan used his (in)fame(y) to buy his way out of a legitimate prosecution. meanwhile, thousands of good people across the country lose access to federal funds like student loans because of minor pot busts, and may have a hard time getting jobs, renting apartments et cetera.

remember this next time saint sullivan starts nattering about how he is so invested in the struggle for "equality."

nikkibong
12-12-2010, 04:56 PM
Says (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/merry-dishm.html) someone who appears under Sullivan's byline (it could be any of his uncredited wage slaves who labor in the bowels of the Earth), describing the greatness of His Greatness:

We don't have the staff and resources of a big magazine - although we now have more readers than most opinion journals online - but we make up for it in passion and a work-ethic that would make Max Weber proud.

Funny, I could have have sworn that Sullivan worked for the Atlantic. But no, apparently one of the most storied and hallowed mags in American journalism has been subsumed by Sullivan the Solipsist.

But, wait, there's more! Apparently Sullivan is now hawking a book about the Greatness Of Marijuana Smoking.

If you prefer a more literary offering for your Dishhead friends or yourself, The Cannabis Closet is available from Blurb for a low $5.95 and shipping that keeps the total cost to under $10 (use promo-code DISH at checkout for a savings of $3).

. . . As I wrote introducing the book yesterday, it's a compilation of first-person pot use testimonials, from top executives to responsible parents, from entrepreneurs to A-students, from unwinding suburbanites to the very sick. In more than 120 personal stories, it demolishes every hoary "stoner" stereotype of the regular pot-user. It doesn't glide over the downsides of pot-use, but it does explain more graphically and powerfully how marijuana-use has become as American as, er, brownies and milk. It shows how responsible pot-use is already compatible with middle-class life and its obligations.

He's really putting that Harvard PhD to good use!

My version of the Cannabis closet:

"It's a compilation of first-person pot use testimonials, from high school drop outs to gang-bangers, from buskers to organo-facists, from "unwinding" 12 year olds beginning their careers as drug addicts, to the people who will soon be very sick with heart disease. (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/03.02/marijuana.html)"

nikkibong
12-12-2010, 05:04 PM
Says (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/merry-dishm.html) someone who appears under Sullivan's byline (it could be any of his uncredited wage slaves who labor in the bowels of the Earth), describing the greatness of His Greatness:



Funny, I could have have sworn that Sullivan worked for the Atlantic. But no, apparently one of the most storied and hallowed mags in American journalism has been subsumed by Sullivan the Solipsist.

But, wait, there's more! Apparently Sullivan is now hawking a book about the Greatness Of Marijuana Smoking.



He's really putting that Harvard PhD to good use!

My version of the Cannabis closet:

"It's a compilation of first-person pot use testimonials, from high school drop outs to gang-bangers, from buskers to organo-facists, from "unwinding" 12 year olds beginning their careers as drug addicts, to the people who will soon be very sick heart disease. (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/03.02/marijuana.html)"



BY THE WAY:

is this grounds for a raid on his house?

ya gotta love how the DC police go around banging down doors (http://www.thehillishome.com/2010/06/potomac-gardens-drug-bust-yields-15-arrests/) in black neighborhoods, yet Sullivan, a foreign national, advertises (and now sells!) his drug habit without consequence.

note to DC police: see what is in front of your nose!

bjkeefe
12-13-2010, 01:46 PM
Web Focus Helps Revitalize The Atlantic

[...]

The Atlantic, the intellectual’s monthly that always seemed more comfortable as an academic exercise than a business, is on track to turn a tidy profit of $1.8 million this year. That would be the first time in at least a decade that it had not lost money.

Getting there took a cultural transfusion, a dose of counterintuition and a lot of digital advertising revenue.

[...]

Since 2005, revenue at The Atlantic has almost doubled, reaching $32.2 million this year, according to figures provided by the company. About half of that is advertising revenue. But digital advertising — projected to finish the year at $6.1 million — represents almost 40 percent of the company’s overall advertising take. In the magazine business, which has resisted betting its future on digital revenue, that is a rate virtually unheard of.

[...]

Mr. Bennet [editor hired in 2006], a former foreign correspondent with a clean-shaven bald head, a goatee and a passion so intense for The Atlantic that he can recite the founders’ 1857 mission statement from memory (“The Atlantic will be the organ of no party or clique”), began refocusing the magazine’s efforts in print and online. He and Mr. Bradley set out to assemble a team of bloggers who were known quantities and could attract a devoted following.

They lured Andrew Sullivan away from Time.com in what proved to be a major coup. Today Mr. Sullivan’s blog, The Daily Dish, accounts for about a quarter of TheAtlantic.com’s monthly unique visitors, which reached 4.8 million in October.

A year earlier, traffic to the site was three million unique visitors. [...]

[...]

In the last year, digital advertising revenue at The Atlantic rose almost 70 percent while print revenue climbed more than 25 percent.

(source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/business/media/13atlantic.html?pagewanted=all))

nikkibong
12-13-2010, 02:56 PM
(source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/business/media/13atlantic.html?pagewanted=all))

i noticed that -- a truly sad commentary on "readers." if the atlantic was that desperate for hits, why didn't they just buy youporn.com or something?

then again, bj, you're welcome to the Dan Brown of bloggers -- i'm just fine with the fallows' of the world. evidently we are a rarified set.

you buy your 50 dollar t shirt yet?

AemJeff
12-13-2010, 03:02 PM
...evidently we are a rarified set.

...

Seriously? No winkie or nuthin?

nikkibong
12-13-2010, 03:06 PM
Seriously? No winkie or nuthin?

look, if brendan equates quality with popularity amongst the demos, i'm more than happy to claim the mantle of rarification.

he's more than welcome to ronald reagan, michael bay, glenn beck, the eagles, the left behind series, and andrew sullivan.

chiwhisoxx
12-13-2010, 04:09 PM
look, if brendan equates quality with popularity amongst the demos, i'm more than happy to claim the mantle of rarification.

he's more than welcome to ronald reagan, michael bay, glenn beck, the eagles, the left behind series, and andrew sullivan.

Hey man, the eagles are bad, but lumping them in with that group of luminaries is a bridge too far

look
12-13-2010, 04:53 PM
look, if brendan equates quality with popularity amongst the demos, i'm more than happy to claim the mantle of rarification.

he's more than welcome to ronald reagan, michael bay, glenn beck, the eagles, the left behind series, and andrew sullivan.Did I ever tell you you're my hero?

nikkibong
12-13-2010, 04:55 PM
Did I ever tell you you're my hero?

you were the wind beneath my wings.

bjkeefe
12-13-2010, 05:00 PM
Did I ever tell you you're my hero?

Given (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/member.php?u=20) the history (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/member.php?u=4765) of your (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/member.php?u=12522) past (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/member.php?u=5122) heroes (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/member.php?u=14602), one wonders how nikkibong will react to such a declaration.

nikkibong
12-13-2010, 05:07 PM
Given (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/member.php?u=20) the history (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/member.php?u=4765) of your (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/member.php?u=12522) past (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/member.php?u=5122) heroes (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/member.php?u=14602), one wonders how nikkibong will react to such a declaration.

What about the (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/10/20/sullivan) history (http://www.slate.com/id/2128199/) of (http://www.mediaite.com/online/andrew-sullivan-defends-his-trig-palin-birther-obsession/) your (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-11/andrew-sullivans-kagan-crusade/) past (http://www.villagevoice.com/2001-06-19/news/the-real-andrew-sullivan-scandal/) and current hero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass_(reporter))?

(sorry, heroes (http://www.mediaite.com/online/conor-friedersdorf-talks-about-his-new-gig-at-andrew-sullivans-blog/).)

bjkeefe
12-13-2010, 05:16 PM
What about the (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/10/20/sullivan) history (http://www.slate.com/id/2128199/) of (http://www.mediaite.com/online/andrew-sullivan-defends-his-trig-palin-birther-obsession/) your (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-11/andrew-sullivans-kagan-crusade/) past (http://www.villagevoice.com/2001-06-19/news/the-real-andrew-sullivan-scandal/) and current hero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass_(reporter))?

(sorry, heroes (http://www.mediaite.com/online/conor-friedersdorf-talks-about-his-new-gig-at-andrew-sullivans-blog/).)

Well, I can see you're descending into full metal wingnuttery due to your bizarre Sullivan obsession. If you need to lie about me just to come up with a comeback, maybe you should take a break from the forum for a while.

For the record, and for new readers assuming any of them care, I never declared Sullivan, much less Stephen Glass or Conor Friedersdorf, to be my heroes. Here is what I said (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=104800#post104800) about Sullivan in February of last year, when nikkibong started this idiotic thread.

nikkibong
12-13-2010, 05:18 PM
Well, I can see you're descending into full metal wingnuttery due to your bizarre Sullivan obsession. If you need to lie about me just to come up with a comeback, maybe you should take a break from the forum for a while.

For the record, and for new readers assuming any of them care, I never declared Sullivan, much less Stephen Glass or Conor Friedersdorf, to be my heroes. Here is what I said (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=104800#post104800) about Sullivan in February of last year, when nikkibong started this idiotic thread.

you missed the point on glass. i didn't say he was your hero. your hero HIRED him and kept him on at TNR for years.

nikkibong
12-13-2010, 05:21 PM
Well, I can see you're descending into full metal wingnuttery due to your bizarre Sullivan obsession. If you need to lie about me just to come up with a comeback, maybe you should take a break from the forum for a while.

For the record, and for new readers assuming any of them care, I never declared Sullivan, much less Stephen Glass or Conor Friedersdorf, to be my heroes. Here is what I said (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=104800#post104800) about Sullivan in February of last year, when nikkibong started this idiotic thread.

i went back and your read your february post! so sorry! you are correct: you never said he is your hero.

you merely said you admire him, appreciate him, respect him, find him entertaining, are thrilled by him, and, best of all, you are "delighted by his wit, intelligence and breadth."

but, no, not your hero. so sorry for being so dreadfully wrong. whatever was i thinking?

chiwhisoxx
12-13-2010, 05:23 PM
i went back and your read your february post! so sorry! you are correct: you never said he is your hero.

you merely said you admire him, appreciate him, respect him, find him entertaining, are thrilled by him, and, best of all, you are "delighted by his wit, intelligence and breadth."

but, no, not your hero. so sorry for being so dreadfully wrong. whatever was i thinking?

The real crime here is the apparently intentional use of the word "delight". Also, is a full metal wingnut the worst kind of wingnut? confirm/deny

nikkibong
12-13-2010, 05:30 PM
Also, is a full metal wingnut the worst kind of wingnut? confirm/deny

evidently, it's the kind of wingnut you become when you dare to blaspheme Saint Sullivan.

bjkeefe
12-13-2010, 05:34 PM
i went back and your read your february post! so sorry! you are correct: you never said he is your hero.

you merely said you admire him, appreciate him, respect him, find him entertaining, are thrilled by him, and, best of all, you are "delighted by his wit, intelligence and breadth."

but, no, not your hero. so sorry for being so dreadfully wrong. whatever was i thinking?

Doubling down on the lies? Selective and misleading quoting in a lame effort to score a cheap point? And with no link to the post (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=104800#post104800) to which you claim to be quoting? No wonder you're look's new hero. And the junior operative's, too, I see.

Keep up the good dishonest work! Maybe you'll even worm your way back into Whatfur's good graces!

AemJeff
12-13-2010, 05:34 PM
...Also, is a full metal wingnut the worst kind of wingnut? confirm/deny

Oh, come on. It's funny, and there's an obvious sense of what it implies.

nikkibong
12-13-2010, 05:35 PM
Doubling down on the lies? Selective and misleading quoting in a lame effort to score a cheap point? And with no link to the post (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=104800#post104800) to which you claim to be quoting? No wonder you're look's new hero. And the junior operative's, too, I see.

Keep up the good dishonest work! Maybe you'll even worm your way back into Whatfur's good graces!

shorter charles barkley, i mean shorter bjkeefe

i was misquoted in my own post!

bjkeefe
12-13-2010, 05:37 PM
shorter charles barkley, i mean shorter bjkeefe

Keep lying, Ethan. It is if nothing else a time-saver when someone who I've been wondering about removes the uncertainty.

nikkibong
12-13-2010, 07:54 PM
It is if nothing else a time-saver when someone who I've been wondering about removes the uncertainty.

glad to confirm that i do not, in fact, care for andrew sullivan.

;)

bjkeefe
12-13-2010, 08:12 PM
[...]

A little late to try walking all that back, Ethan. Especially with disingenuousness and a winkie.

You burned a bridge and now you own it.

nikkibong
12-13-2010, 08:13 PM
A little late to try walking all that back, Ethan. Especially with disingenuousness and a winkie.

You burned a bridge and now you own it.

how can i own a burned bridge?

nikkibong
12-13-2010, 08:16 PM
Keep lying, Ethan. It is if nothing else a time-saver when someone who I've been wondering about removes the uncertainty.

by the way, i clearly did not "lie" about anything. you're welcome to be pissed at me for insulting someone you admire, but it's just weird to accuse me of "lying."

i'd be surprised if anyone here on the forum thought i in any way "lied" about you.


jeff, for example, is usually a pretty neutral arbiter -- what does he think?

p.s. no problem if you don't want to answer, jeff, on account of not wanting to hurt anybody's feelings.

bjkeefe
12-13-2010, 08:20 PM
how can i own a burned bridge?

Review this exchange. That's how.

Don't worry if you can't figure it out right away. Wingnuts are not known for being able to acknowledge reality. But sooner or later, I'm sure it'll become clear, even to you.