Blogger-writer Andrew Sullivan proudly attended Obama's latest state dinner for Cameron with his husband
, in an open display of growing acceptance of same-sex marriage possibly by the powers-to-be. Michael Shaw's always-insightful BagNews (but not MS himself in this post) notes that there were 3 bearded men in the photograph
posted by growabrain
on Mar 18, 2012 -
Demanding that you alone be held accountable and no one else be scapegoated would itself be an act of honor. It would draw a line between the past and the future in the same way that Lincoln’s defense of his brief suspensions of habeas corpus conceded Congress’s sole right to remove this core constitutional provision, but defended his action as a necessary emergency measure because a mass rebellion “had subverted the whole of the laws.” You do not deserve to go down in history as the president who brought torture into the American system and refused to take responsibility for it..
An Open Letter to George W Bush
posted by empath
on Sep 14, 2009 -
Prominent blogger Andrew Sullivan develops an unhealthy obsession
over the (lack of) details surrounding the birth of Sarah Palin's youngest child. Sullivan really, really won't let it go.
Persistent rumors lead the editor of the Alaska Daily News to, "finally decide, after watching this go on unabated for months, to let a reporter try to do a story about the 'conspiracy theory that would not die' and, possibly, report the facts of Trig's birth thoroughly enough to kill the nonsense once and for all." Palin releases press release
slamming the paper. Editor of paper publishes email
from Palin's office along with his response. Palin complains
about "bored, anonymous, pathetic bloggers who lie," says episode is, "more indication of continued problems in the world of journalism." She also thinks Katie Couric is bad at journalism,
not the center of everybody's universe, and is exploiting Palin. Mike Huckabee disagrees, says Couric was "extraordinarily gentle" with Palin.
Political pundits and journalists are left scratching their heads - is she crazy? Or a crazy genius?
2012 is just around the corner.
posted by billysumday
on Jan 13, 2009 -
Kerry's Democrats: The Conservative Party?
So thinks Andrew Sullivan: "I may not find myself the only conservative moving slowly and reluctantly toward the notion that Kerry may be the right man - and the conservative choice - for a difficult and perilous time." Similar thoughts
were published recently by AEI: "If the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' still had any meaning in American foreign policy, George Bush would happily style himself the true liberal--the radical, even--in the upcoming election and paint Kerry as the conservative, the reactionary." Food for thought in front of the convention this week.
posted by dagny
on Jul 25, 2004 -
Andrew Sullivan rips apart a Rolling Stone Story
that claims that 1/4 of new HIV infections among gay men are sought out by people both looking to infect others and looking to become infected. "Bug chasing" may have been around for a while, but according to Sullivan and this Newsweek article
also debunking the shoddy Rolling Stone piece, it's nowhere near the numbers being exaggerated. This brings up so many issues: the speed with which false information is spread over the Internet; the decreasing responsibility of the media to actually report facts; how trustworthy are our news sources?; will Drudge, who also reported the RS story
without any hint of its falsehood, ever be revealed as the sensationalistic closet case he is? (Okay, that last bit was a wee troll, so ignore!).
posted by archimago
on Jan 24, 2003 -
"A format designed for Unabombers."
Andrew Sullivan blasts Weblogs (odd, ain't it?)
in a conversation with Kurt Anderson at Slate
. Both Sullivan and Anderson rip on our own Rebecca Blood
I find it especially ironic that Sullivan refers to blogs' "supercilious tone." He also can't stand the idea that drives Metafilter, apparently: "Worse, [Blood] can write earnestly about a Weblog 'community.' Aaagghh. "
posted by Vidiot
on Sep 4, 2002 -
The old battleaxe is back.
Impressed with his performance at the New School, Camille Paglia
and the Blog Queen
seem to have a bit of a partnership.
I post a link about the conflict in the Levant with fear, loathing, and asbestos, but nonetheless, this mini-article is a well thought-out piece.
posted by goethean
on Aug 15, 2002 -
The Gay Right.
Richard Goldstein argues (accurately, I think) that the Right has come to dominate gay and lesbian politics. Even when I don't agree with them, I've always enjoyed reading Andrew Sullivan and Norah Vincent -- but where are their progressive counterparts?
posted by MikeB
on Jun 17, 2002 -
Are people demonizing Islam to gain publicity?
In an op-ed article in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle, Asma Hasan
wrote that post 9/11, 'hating' Islam is getting 'intellectualized'. She wrote that those who are framing the debate in 'clash of civilization' terms are doing it mainly to gain publicity (or because they dont know better). Her ire was directed more towards Sullivan and Rushdie whose voices as she rightly pointed out carry greater weight than that of people like Buchanan or Graham.
I do see a lot more stuff on the the 'clash of civilization' theme now than I have seen before sept 11. Is it because people think and speak a lot more on this subject now and this is what they actually believe or has the subject been getting sensationalized over the last few months?
posted by justlooking
on Mar 14, 2002 -
Ron Rosenbaum writes interestingly in the NY Observer about how Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan, expatriate Brits both, have become the "most forceful, eloquent and influential voices in the American debate over the Sept. 11 attacks and their meaning."
posted by bmckenzie
on Jan 11, 2002 -
It is The Religion
A very strong case made for Why They Hate Us...and it is not so much our world-wide policies. This piece along with the earlier piece I had posted by Paul Berman (American Prospect) are fine appraisals of why Islam "fears" the West and what they ideally want. Sullivan avoides the (for me) overly simplistic single causes that so many seem convinced of and offers instead a much larger view. Via NY Times, free reg. req'd.
posted by Postroad
on Oct 7, 2001 -
"Whatever else is going on, the liberal-left alliance has taken as big a hit as the conservative-fundamentalist alliance after the blame-America remarks of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson ... It may be [...] that the far left's bluff has been finally called ... For the first time in a very long while, many liberals are reassessing--quietly for the most part--their alliance with the anti-American, anticapitalist forces they have long appeased, ignored or supported." Andrew Sullivan in Thursday's Opinion Journal.
Strong piece, but is he correct? I've seen a few people reassessing here and there, but not a lot, at least not yet.
posted by aaron
on Oct 3, 2001 -
is always a tension between civilization and barbarism, and the barbarians are now here. The task in front of us to somehow stay civilized while not shrinking from the face of extinguishing - by sheer force if necessary - the forces that would eclipse us.
posted by semmi
on Sep 12, 2001 -
on the whole Andrew Sullivan and Michael Signoreli fiasco. Finally, a well written viewpoint about the barebacking incident
that raised the hackles of gay conservatives and liberals alike.
posted by chason
on Jun 8, 2001 -
Is this Andrew Sullivan's ass?
This morning, Jim Romenesko
made a questionable publishing decision. He ran a link to an article in last Friday's edition of the newspaper LGNY
, in which Michelangelo Signorile
makes a very serious allegation: That Andrew Sullivan
has been advertising for "bareback" sex online
(anal sex w/o condoms). Such actions on Sullivan's part would be seen by many as exceedingly hypocritical given his voluminous writings of a moral conservative bent and his "arrogance toward the ghettoized gay scene" (as Signorile puts it), if not downright dangerous given his HIV+ status.
If true, this brings up plenty of ideological and moral issues, which I'm sure will be discussed in this thread. But that's not why I'm bringing it up here. I'm posting because of the vaguely Kayceeish nature of the whole thing. If you look at Signorile's article, you'll see that all the evidence is circumstantial. Several people who Signorile really really trust say they answered the ads and Sullivan was the guy that showed up when they met. The photos in the ads look like what most people expect Sullivan's body to look like (minus his head, of course). Also, Sullivan hasn't responded to anyone's questions about this, and after all, if the accusations were false wouldn't Sullivan be loudly denying them (wink wink)?
Complicating the whole mess is Signorile's own journalistic history - he made his name during the late '80s-early '90s running gossipy columns outing famous people against their will - and that Romenesko decided to publicize this article in the first place, thus ensuring that every single person in the national media is fully aware of the allegations, true or not. Is this actual proof that Sullivan is guilty of barebacking, or is he being Borked (Kayceed?)? Should it have been publicized like this in the first place, since a mention in Romenesko is the best way to start up a classic pack journalism action short of running a front-page story in The New York Times? Will other media outlets jump on this now and sully Sullivan's reputation, whether the allegations are true or not?
posted by aaron
on May 29, 2001 -