Pish and Piffle

Technorati Tags: Andrew Sullivan,Daily Dish,Left,Language,Politics,Culture Wars

Sometimes Andrew Sullivan is exasperating.

Take this item in today’s Daily Dish: Bronski’s Beat.

It contains these lines:

It has always seemed chilling to me that gay leftists - when pushed to say what they really believe - want to keep gays in some sort of glorious, oppressed, marginalized position, until the majority agrees with the gay left's view of human nature, and revolutionizes straight society as well. This will never happen (and in my view, shouldn't).

Until then, the gay left focuses on demonizing those gays who argue for those who want to belong to their own families as equals, serve their country or commit to one another for life. In this, in my view, the gay left mirrors the Christianist right: they insist that otherness define the minority, even though most members of that minority are born and grow up in the heart of the American family, in all its variations, and of American culture, in all its permutations. No one should be marginalized for seeking otherness. But we are fighting for it to be a choice, not a fate.

All of that because some guy named Bronski wrote a book.

I don’t know Bronski; I don’t care about Bronski; I wish him well, as I would any stranger.

Sullivan, on the other hand (whom I also don’t know except through his writing) is part of my support system—OK, he doesn’t know that nor would he care much. And I find it galling that he would take the words of one, or two or even a hundred of such writers as Bronski and call him/them “the gay left.”

No one in my cohort of friends and acquaintances fits the description of Sullivan’s “the gay left,” but virtually every one of them is gay and/or a politically left person.

Sullivan trips up on his own style when in the first paragraph he uses “gay leftist.” Usually he reserves the suffix “-ist” for such as the odious Christian extremist (Christianist) or the odious Moslem extremist (Islamist).

By the second para he has forgotten that he’s writing about extremists and has omitted the suffix. Which brings me and my friends and acquaintances into the mix. We don’t belong there.

Significant writing error, that omission.

Do you suppose he’ll apologize, Dear Gentle Reader(s)?

Even when reading Sullivan (he will go over the top on occasion), the admonition applies:

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

Words have meaning…Continued

Technorati Tags: Andrew Sullivan,Juan Williams,Bill O'Reilly,NPR,Muslim,Religion,Bigotry

And the Juan Williams confab continues.

In a post today, Andrew Sullivan writes…”He said it was legitimate to feel fear when someone in Muslim garb is on a plane.” 

Not quite.  Williams said, “…when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Now, DGR(s), is fear, which Sullivan used, equal to worried or to nervous?

If Williams had refused to get on the plane with those dressed “in Muslim garb,” then it could be argued that the two words he used are, indeed, equivalent; but he doesn’t indicate in the interview with O’Reilly that he canceled his trip.  The presumption must be that he rode along with those in the “garb,” albeit a touch fidgety.

So, how about Sullivan’s position?  Was Williams really legitimizing fear of Muslims?

One would be hard pressed to think so.

It’s easy to be nervous around anyone who sports religious symbolism in their garb or accessories.  I’m nervous around guys walking around with crosses in their lapels, but I don’t fear them.  I certainly am more aware of what they do when they’re near.

Their presence is always a good time to

Trust, but verify.

(I stand by my support of NPR; their decision was based on their standards about differentiating between reporters and commenters.)

Sphere: Related Content

Bill and Andrew; Babe and Truman

Did Andrew Sullivan miss an idea or two about WF Buckley's attitudes towards gays, and, thus, WFB's basic attitude about Andrew, specifically?

Already, Dear Gentle Reader(s), we have explored a specific instance, available in Andrew's own blog, wherein Buckley dismissed the possibility of equality between a non-gay marriage and a gay marriage--Buckley's position is more general, but the marriage issue is within the "penumbra."

Just a little bit of Googling "William F. Buckley Anti-Semite?" leads to a very interesting web site for CampusProgress.org in which one Tim Fernholz reminds us of the writings of Buckley in which Buckley flirted with anti-semitism ("[Buckley] found that conservative politician Pat Buchanan had said “things about Jews” that were anti-Semitic, but excused it as “[t]he iconoclastic daemon having a night out on the town.”); racism (“The central question… is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes…. National Review believes that the South’s premises are correct…” In other words National Review opposed civil rights legislation. Buckley later characterized that stance regretfully, saying, “I think that the impact of that bill should have been welcomed by us.” [Remember that the Republican Party made good use of racial politics in its rise to prominence in the South.]); and homophobia ([Buckley, in the late 1960s] “the man who in his essays proclaims the normalcy of his affliction [i.e., homosexuality], and in his art the desirability of it, is not to be confused with the man who bears his sorrow quietly. The addict is to be pitied and even respected, not the pusher.”)

Sullivan has been quick to point out that Buckley did manage to change his mind on some important issues "So the most influential conservative of his generation endorsed both the Vietnam and the 2003 Iraq wars, and came to regret doing both." Nowhere, however, does Sullivan indicate that Buckley ever changed his mind about Sullivan's sexual orientation, or his recent marriage in Massachusetts.

Buckley is often described as "patrician." Doubtless he was that; he certainly behaved with the sense of entitlement which inflicts so many who are conscious of their upper class status.

One is mindful of the relationship between the Babe Paley crowd and Truman Capote. As long as he was a metaphorical lap dog, entertaining, and non-threatening, Tru was invited. When he showed the first sign of independence, he was no longer tolerated.

Buckley never gave indication, so far as his current references show, that gays were little more than his own metaphorical lap dogs. He nurtured those whom he found in his company; but then, he never admitted his error about their lives being mere addictions or they, themselves, being pushers.

Surely Sullivan doesn't think his core being makes him an addict, or that his well argued positions on equality for non-gays and gays alike make him a pusher, and Sullivan in no way ever writes about his core "sorrow."

Sullivan is a hero, albeit flawed, to this blog; Sullivan's own hero is far more flawed. Would he could see it.

Trust, Andrew, and mourn, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

R.I.P. WFB, Jr.--Obit anus abit onus

William F. Buckley, Jr., died this week, Dear Gentle Reader(s). Almost as distressing as his political views, are some of the encomia which have been heaped on his memory, exemplified, alas, by my hero, Andrew Sullivan.

Sullivan gave space several times over the past week to moments of reflection about Buckley. The one which is most disturbing appeared on February 28, under the title "Buckley and the Gays."

Here are some quotes Sullivan attributes to Buckley, presented in a letter written by Buckley to a colleague who had just come out to him: "I honor your decision to raise publicly the points you raise ... but you too must realize what are the implications of what you ask. Namely, that the Judaeo-Christian tradition, which is aligned with, no less, one way of life, become indifferent to another way of life ...National Review will not be scarred by thoughtless gay bashing, let alone be animated by such practices ... You are absolutely correct in saying that gays should be welcome as partners in efforts to mint sound public policies; not correct, in my judgement, in concluding that such a partnership presupposes the repeal of convictions that are more, much more, than mere accretions of bigotry. You remain, always, my dear friend, and my brother in combat."

Just what ill would befall a particular (Judaeo-Christian) way of life by its indifference is not limned. Nor is it exactly clear what Buckley meant by "much much more than mere accretions of bigotry." What could be so important to convictions of any sort than ridding it of convictions of bigotry?

Sullivan begins this posting with He was much too civilized to have been personally hostile or rude; and ends it with absent Buckley's grace and manners.

In the middle, he reminds us, and himself, that "gayness would bar [a person] from full inclusion as an equal in the conservative movement."

Buckley had grace and manners? Of the sort which is imperious, perhaps. Rather like the attitude celebrated by Rogers and Hammerstein in The King and I: "Don't let us up off our knees, your Majesty/ Give us a kick, if you please, your Majesty/ Give us a kick, if you would, your Majesty/ Oooph! Oh, that was good, your Majesty!"

The man scorned Sullivan's core being--with grace and manners, to be sure.

Schopenhauer's little quip seldom had more meaning than in the case of Mr. Buckley.

R.I.P. William F. Buckley, Junior.

Sphere: Related Content

Sullivan on Bush

If, Dear Reader, you need a clarification of the situation in Iraq, it would do you well to jump over to this piece by Andrew Sullivan in his The Daily Dish.

Like no other "conservative" blogger/commentator, Sullivan manages to identify significant moments in the Bush Administration's mishandling of this military effort in Iraq.

I recommend it to you.

Please.

Then write your Congressperson.

Sphere: Related Content

The Sam and Andrew Show--Winding Down?

Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan have been engaging in an exchange which debates faith and religion. Beliefnet carries it.

Frankly, I find it to be a bit tiresome and futile. Much electronic "ink" has been spilled, and, as Sullivan writes today, "Perhaps, then, Sam, we have talked as much as we fruitfully can" it's time to move on.

No one asked, but here's my take on it: 1) We exist; 2) Something caused us to become; 3) We don't know what that something is; 4) The anthropomorphization of that something has caused untold miseries because that anthropomorphization has allowed all human strengths and foibles to somehow become endowed with an element of divinity. Jealousy is deified, pettiness is deified, anger is deified, revenge is deified.

When religionists speak of blasphemy of others, their tongues should fall out of their heads.

Sorry, Andrew; this is one place where one might certainly trust, but it is impossible to verify.

Sorry, Sam; as long as you write, which proves that someone using your name exists, something caused you to exist.

Andrew Sullivan
Sam Harris
Religion

Sphere: Related Content

A Neo-Con's Admission...if half-hearted

Andrew Sullivan has a long quote in The Daily Dish today (You might have to to the archive for March 28, 2007) which comes from a neo-con. In it the writer admits to coming around to agree with many of the critical points which have been aimed at the Bush Administration vis-a-vis Iraq.

At the end of the piece, Sullivan writes, "This is almost exactly my view. It doesn't exculpate me from what I once supported; but it's honest. And honesty is a start."

That's nice. Honesty is a start. In the middle of the piece, though, one finds this:

"But conservatives and a lot of moderates rallied around Bush and Co. because of the unfair attacks from the left and the media, whose objectivity was never in evidence, and in doing so we ratified and enabled every bad decision Bush and Co. made in Iraq."

What that amounts to is "the devil [aka liberals and Main Stream Media] made me do it." Further, the question must arise that, at the time, the objectivity of the neo-cons was where? In evidence? Where was the skepticism of the right? Compromised by the skepticism of the left?

The left seems to have learned the lesson of Reagan, the right yet has learned to "Trust, but verify."

Andrew Sullivan
Neo-cons

Sphere: Related Content

Andrew, Politico, Reagan

Yesterday several bloggers jumped the gun with respect to the Edwards campaign and the effect Mrs. Edwards' battle against cancer would have on it.

While most people are crediting (?) Politico with the first erroneous posting, too many were too eager to follow suit and several, among them Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish, posted that the campaign would be suspended, just a few minutes before the actual news conference would announce that Edwards would continue his campaign in defiance of the cancer and its ramifications. Politico should have waited a few minutes; Sullivan certainly should have waited, why risk one's integrity on the word of someone else's "scoop" in this day of easily verifiable facts?

Back in the 1960s Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment warned against arriving at a conclusion without proper investigation.

Ronald Reagan in the 1980s warned against accepting too easily Soviet assurances of geo-political detente with "Trust, but verify."

It seems ever 20 years or so we need to be reminded of engaging in precipitous actions without having taken prudent precautions--planning for peace in an invaded country; repeating a "scoop" without double checking the scoop.

While it might be easy to forget Mark Lane's contribution to caution, it is less easy to understand how so many contemporary conservatives forget Mr. Reagan's suggestion. They invoke his memory, reverentially, with frequency.

Sphere: Related Content