Some Linky Fun Regarding the Now-Beastly Sully
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
(The beast “Sully” from Monsters Inc.)
So last night Patterico told you that Andrew Sullivan was jumping ship from the Atlantic, and bringing his Daily Dish blog over to the Daily Beast.
My first thought was, what would Howard Kurtz think of the chief Trig Truther joining his site? But a quick search through our own archives reminds us that Karl pointed out that at one time Kurtz pushed the Trig Truther theory himself. But then later, via Patterico, he pretended that Sullivan and his nuttiness didn’t even exist.
And of course, the Daily Beast now owns Newsweek (which has to be one of the saddest lines ever written in journalistic history), which is reportedly exactly why Sullivan wanted to work for the Beast: because he is hoping for a platform for columns and essays. So, it would be interesting to see what Sully said and felt about Newsweek. And we find over at the Atlantic, he wrote:
But there has been no press scrutiny [of Palin’s icky girl parts]. In fact, there has been enormous pressure from the press not to investigate the story and to mock anyone who does so. No MSM interviewer of Palin has ever asked a single question about the bizarre stories that Palin has told about her political prop – not Oprah, not Couric, not Gibson, not anyone. Newsweek has reprinted minute details of Palin’s story as fact with no independent confirmation but Palin’s own words. No MSM newspaper has asked for or demanded easily available proof of the pregnancy and birth – except the Anchorage Daily News, after the election, which prompted Palin not to quietly offer proof to an editor keen to put the entire controversy to rest, but to explode in rage.
Well, now “he will become a Newsweek contributor,” I am sure he will have the opportunity to correct that. And dig the photograph he attaches to that post:
Isn’t that the perfect metaphor for all of this? Assuming the child is Trig, the child’s face disappears, figuratively erasing the child’s humanity, as Sullivan proceeds to use the child as a means to attack the mother. It’s a window into a disturbed mind. My gosh, what a wonderful addition to the Daily Beast/Newsweek family!
Of course this all leaves two more questions. First, the PJ Tatler asks what will be the fate of Sully’s ghost bloggers? And meanwhile American Power is looking for a statement from Sarah Palin’s uterus.
And of course I asked a much more basic question last June (warning: coarse language at the link).
Bluntly, no respectable publication should have any interest in him, no matter how many nutballs he counts as his readers. And if you eliminated all the people who went to his site wondering what crazy #$&! he would say next, how many actual followers that respect him did he have?
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
This post deserves an Andrew Sullivan butt rub from the Bill Maher show.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 2/28/2011 @ 11:37 amAssuming the child is Trig
The child appears to be much too tall to be a(n almost) three year-old.
aunursa (a2a019) — 2/28/2011 @ 11:42 amAre you really knocking him for obscuring the child’s face??? You are asserting that it is MORE ethical or responsible to include an identifiable picture of a politician’s children in a political attack on that politician? As much as I despise Sullivan I find your attack hard to agree with. I see the left try to justify making children “fair game” but I can’t recall even them saying that it is improper not to do so.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/28/2011 @ 12:46 pmmachinest
why not just have a picture of her solo?
and look especially at the pic you see. it almost looks like the kid’s head is transparent now. like you can see her coat through his head. its creepy.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/28/2011 @ 12:48 pm“why not just have a picture of her solo?”
Would you have claimed that he was denying the child’s existence by doing this? You have been taking some rather bizarre positions of late, like the one about the lady journalist that was assaulted in Egypt. They seem grounded in expedience rather than any identifiable principle.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/28/2011 @ 12:53 pmThe face seems to have been obscured with a smearing tool. Not including the child would be better but you did not criticize him so much for including the child but for obscuring the face, which seems correct to me if the child is to be in the picture at all.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/28/2011 @ 12:57 pmMachinest
> Would you have claimed that he was denying the child’s existence by doing this?
why would i? by the same logic, the pic would be denying the exitance of bristol, willow, their husband, all their other children, and so on.
> They seem grounded in expedience rather than any identifiable principle.
except for the minor fact that in the egyptian case, i was asking for the release of information that might contradict my thesis. i mean there is that.
anyway, look, if you think i am being terribly unfair to sully, you are entitled to your thought. but really i don’t need to use a photograph to denounce his nuttiness on palin. i just need to quote him.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/28/2011 @ 1:00 pm“…but really i don’t need to use a photograph to denounce his nuttiness on palin. i just need to quote him.”
I agree completely, which is why such a seemingly contrived or forced criticism seems counter productive. It detracts from the credibility of the more legitimate points.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/28/2011 @ 1:06 pmFirst of all, isn’t it fairly clear, that is an older picture, and that’s Piper, second of all, what herd of wolves raised Tina Brown
narciso (bf58f6) — 2/28/2011 @ 1:07 pm“except for the minor fact that in the egyptian case, i was asking for the release of information that might contradict my thesis. i mean there is that.”
But on what basis do you claim the victim of sexual assault owes you all the salacious details, whatever your reason for wanting to know?
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/28/2011 @ 1:09 pmmachinest
oh, for God’s sake.
first, when did i say “salacious details”? i just said we deserved to know what happened. given that we can’t even say if she was raped, that isn’t very much to ask.
second, as for why… asked and answered. because events that happen in public during an important world event should not be hidden. period.
third, i didn’t say she had to tell us, only that CBS owed us the truth.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/28/2011 @ 1:17 pmWhy does CBS owe you details of her ordeal that she does not choose to share with you? I think that his her call.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/28/2011 @ 1:23 pmmachinest
well, feel free to feel this way. but the fact is if they saw a person who was not a reporter being sexually assaulted, we would know–but the name would be withheld. but since we can’t withhold the name here, the facts have been withheld.
for instance, we have some bloggers calling all muslims evil and saying they raped her. if they didn’t, wouldn’t that cool down that hatred? so shouldn’t we know, one way or the other?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/28/2011 @ 1:26 pm“…so shouldn’t we know, one way or the other?”
I’m sorry, but this sounds like Sullivan’s argument that Palin could end his despicable attacks by revealing her private medical records of her pregnancy and birth. It is the woman’s right to withhold the details of her assault. The irresponsible speculations of bloggers are not her responsibility and she owes you nothing that she does not wish to have public.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/28/2011 @ 1:36 pmMachinest
> I’m sorry, but this sounds like Sullivan’s argument that Palin could end his despicable attacks by revealing her private medical records of her pregnancy and birth
Except for the fact that we know for a fact that something happened in the case of Logan’s assault.
And palin’s private medical records would be revealed merely to show what we already know. i don’t object to sully’s request because it is an invasion of privacy. i object, because it is stupid and paranoid to ask.
But you seem to think that privacy trumps all. That is not how i see it.
btw, why tell us anything at all, if they aren’t going to tell us the whole story?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/28/2011 @ 1:43 pmI agree, for the most part, with Machinist’s position. Having said that, the networks would not show this type of restraint if it was not one of their own, or if it aided their narrative. Calls to respect the privacy of any individual coming from the hordes of braying hyenas in the MFM should make their pointy heads assplode.
JD (822109) — 2/28/2011 @ 1:44 pmJD
okay, i will bite. what does mfm mean?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/28/2011 @ 1:47 pmMother f@cking media.
JD (d48c3b) — 2/28/2011 @ 1:50 pmJD,
I agree but our credibility is not established or maintained by sinking to their level. We are better than that and I think it is worth the cost to maintain that.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/28/2011 @ 1:52 pmThis is why I disagree with Aaron. I care much less about Sullivan than I do about the credibility of this site.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/28/2011 @ 1:53 pm“No MSM newspaper has asked for or demanded easily available proof of the pregnancy and birth – except the Anchorage Daily News, after the election, which prompted Palin not to quietly offer proof to an editor keen to put the entire controversy to rest, but to explode in rage.”
Umm, couldn’t you make the same argument about Obama and his birth certificate?
Steve (f79322) — 2/28/2011 @ 2:18 pmSullivan would be writing for a Penny Saver if he was an authentically conservative straight guy who criticized promiscuous gay men only to be discovered looking online for unprotected sex using the most ridiculously revolting terms imaginable. But he’s not. So he gets away with it.
L.N. Smithee (e1449a) — 2/28/2011 @ 2:21 pm
L.N. Smithee (e1449a) — 2/28/2011 @ 2:24 pmBeing a progressive requires Ninja-like lack of self-awareness.
thank you for asking about mfm I been wondering too for many moons nobody tells me anything
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/28/2011 @ 3:23 pmAaron,
I might have missed it if someone already noted this but I believe that is a picture of Sarah Palin when she was pregnant just a few weeks before Trig’s birth. Ol’ glutes included it show that (in his opinion) she wasn’t preggers. He’s a complete idiot of course since to me and any other reasonable person she does indeed look like pregnant women who exercise and have an athletic body type. (I had forgotten that Maher Youtube and it reminded me of the “I take loads” bit which re-creeped me out, again…)
Dave in OC (d1d92b) — 2/28/2011 @ 3:26 pmLet me see if I understand this correctly: sully wants Sarah Palin to release her medical records when it comes to the birth of Trig, but is he demanding Obama’s medical records or was he satisfied with a one page letter from Obama’s doctor that didn’t even mention that Obama is a smoker?
Got it.
retire05 (63d9af) — 2/28/2011 @ 3:29 pmForgot to add, he obscured the face because even ‘Ol glutes wasn’t prepared to face the music and undoubtedly a lawsuit from innocent Alaska Governor visitor’s parents.
Dave in OC (d1d92b) — 2/28/2011 @ 3:30 pmI think I made that point at No.9, Dave,
narciso (bf58f6) — 2/28/2011 @ 3:32 pmmachinest
Machinest
> I do about the credibility of this site.
What does this have to do with the credibility of this site? Why does it have to be personal? Why can’t you just disagree with me without impugning my credibility? Can’t I just honestly feel differently than you?
I get it. alot of people put alot more value on the privacy of Logan than i do–indeed probably more value on privacy generally than i do. But isn’t that a difference of opinion, not a matter of honesty?
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/28/2011 @ 3:38 pmI don’t think that is Piper Narcisco but maybe I’m wrong. (I thought that was a generic kid visitor to the Governor’s office. I doubt he would’ve blanked Piper’s face.) Regardless if you look closely she really does look preggers. And Glutes is still an idiot… My best remembrance is Hugh Hewitt telling him on air, one hour critique of Glutes’s book “This really is a mess isn’t it.” Heh.
Dave in OC (d1d92b) — 2/28/2011 @ 3:58 pmI think I remember that review around 2006, back
narciso (bf58f6) — 2/28/2011 @ 4:04 pmwhen they still ran his bloc with Steyn and Lileks
and the movie guy
Dave
thanks for your insights. i will probably update the post in a bit. i guess you have to follow sully’s site, which i don’t, to know what the hell that is supposed to signify.
i would say she has a belly. she is obviously trying to minimize it, as a person is entitled to a little vanity.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/28/2011 @ 4:05 pmSame here. That was a golden moment.
carlitos (01d172) — 2/28/2011 @ 4:11 pm#29 Comment by Aaron Worthing — 2/28/2011 @ 3:38 pm
Aaron,
Credibility and honesty are not the same. I have said nothing about your honesty and frankly have no reason to doubt or challenge it. One can be honest and yet lack credibility because one is misinformed or biased. My point was that you seemed to be advocating difficult to defend positions because they were expedient and that was not up to the usual standards of this site. Patterico and others here like DRJ have set the bar very high here for reasoned, fair, and objective commentary.
If my understanding of the word “credibility” is wrong and I have impugned your honesty then I apologize. This was not my intention. I just feel that an unfair charge against a person like him diminishes the legitimacy of of the very reasonable complaints people should have about his conduct.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/28/2011 @ 4:24 pmI agree with Machinist, and would add that Palin’s failure to provide birth records to bigots and haters isn’t any different from Obama’s. I also disagree agree with Aaron regarding that poor journalist assaulted in Egypt. In my opinion, the assumption that there is something to hide in each of these cases reveals a failed epistemology.
carlitos (01d172) — 2/28/2011 @ 4:37 pmhttp://dailycaller.com/2011/02/28/prostitute-patronizing-dem-wisconsin-state-represent-to-female-gop-colleague-you-are-fucking-dead/
More of that civility that Yelverton and counterfactual were yammering about …
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/28/2011 @ 4:58 pmMachinest
> If my understanding of the word “credibility” is wrong and I have impugned your honesty then I apologize.
I always understood credibility to be mainly about honesty, but I see that you don’t mean it that way, so no offense taken on that front.
> My point was that you seemed to be advocating difficult to defend positions because they were expedient and that was not up to the usual standards of this site.
Really? So what exactly is expedient about my position on Logan? What is my supposed bias that you are accusing me of? Name it.
Don’t be coy or subtle. Say it.
Because I have always acknowledged that the truth might undermine how I feel about some things in egypt. The truth might prove inconvenient, not expedient.
In your mind the primary issue is privacy. Well, that is you. For me, privacy has much less significance especially when we are talking about public lives like either Palin or Logan.
Now ask yourself a simple question. Who is Trig Palin’s mother? We all know it is Sarah Palin, right? We have no reasonable doubt as to that, right?
Okay, now a new question. Was Lara Logan raped? Yes or no?
Unless you have some inside information I don’t there is only one correct answer: “I don’t know.”
So for me the chief difference between Sullivan’s request for more information and mine is this. Sullivan’s request is stupid. He doubts something that most of us are satisfied is true. So I don’t care if Palin is not releasing that information.
By comparison, we don’t know what happened to Lara Logan, except it was a brutal, sexual assault. So instead of doubting something that most sane people know is true, I am asking to for them to tell us something that just about no one knows.
There is no inconsistency. I just don’t think like you do. And that’s okay. But I don’t appreciate being called biased just because I don’t think privacy is sacrosanct. it has nothing to do with bias.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/28/2011 @ 4:59 pmhttp://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/28/wisconsin-dem-assemblyman-to-gop-colleague-you-are-fing-dead/
Civility. I blame Palin.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/28/2011 @ 4:59 pmThis is a logical fallacy called special pleading. I mean no offense by posting it, but it’s not really a legit argument.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html
carlitos (01d172) — 2/28/2011 @ 5:04 pmI don’t think I said you were biased, I mentioned that as an example of something that effects credibility without necessarily meaning dishonesty.
I do not like the focus on Obama’s birth because right or wrong he has been elected and I think it is a barren line of investigation at this point that distracts from more important and productive lines of attack. It is something to catch earlier in the future. It is however a matter the public has a right to look into as it goes to his legal eligibility to hold the office.
Neither Palin nor the reporter are addressing such public issues. These are private matters that are no one else’s business unless the ladies pursue some legal action related to these issues. Juanita Broaddrick was required to testify about Bill Clinton’s rape of her because of a legal action against Clinton. Do you say she had an obligation to publicize the details earlier so people could use that information for political purposes? I don’t think so.
The reporter may not want her children, family, coworkers, friends, and family friend to know all the details of her ordeal and I don’t see what right you have to say she must share it with you. Must every rape victim publicize the details? I can’t help but doubt you would demand this of a family member or close associate.
I don’t think you would criticize a conservative for not showing an identifiable picture of a politician’s child as part of an attack on them. This is what I mean when I say inconsistent or expedient.
I will grant I may be wrong about you on this but I think better of you.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/28/2011 @ 6:08 pmWould the reporter be obligated to share intimate details of consensual sex she had with a man or is it only rape you have a right to know about?
I just can’t see where you have a right to know this. Where does it come from?
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/28/2011 @ 6:11 pmMachinist, that’s a straw man. As you know, CBS knows what happened, since they had many people there. You’re saying Aaron is demanding Logan personally share intimate details, but that’s not really what he’s asking for. He’s asking for basic, general information from CBS, a news organization that has that information about a major event.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/28/2011 @ 6:13 pmThis was part of a coordinated attack against her, with the Journolisters proper, Sullivan, Kurtz at one time, and some slimy nutrooters in Alaska and even Europe. You attack the subject on their strongest point, their integrity, honesty, patriotism, (with the secessionist astroturf) fidelity, et al, all at once, so the real person
narciso (bf58f6) — 2/28/2011 @ 6:15 pmcan’t be identified. Now Sullivan is just insane,
but their maybe that underlying sentiment that AW
speculates on,
Seems emotionally charged to insert elements of the victim being forced to share extreme levels of ‘salacious’ detail. That’s not what Aaron said at all.
We can question whether or not CBS is in the business of journalism or not without crying about a dilemma that doesn’t exist.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/28/2011 @ 6:19 pmDustin,
I don’t mean to do that. I think CBS has an obligation to respect her privacy unless she chooses to make the details public by doing so herself or giving them permission.
If a reporter has cancer or AIDS, is it proper for the employer to go public if the individual wants it kept private?
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/28/2011 @ 6:22 pmIsn’t her uterus in the public domain?
Sully the bear-puppet (80d439) — 2/28/2011 @ 6:26 pmI agree with Machinist’s position on Lara Logan.
I’m just wondering how that discussion wound up on this thread . . . ?
Icy Texan (80d439) — 2/28/2011 @ 6:28 pmDustin,
Aaron said,”My personal position on the Lara Logan assault has been, simply put, we have a right to know the full details of what happened to her.”
He is talking about the details that differentiate a rape from a sexual assault. That sounds like salacious details to me but I am sorry if that is too inflammatory. Respectfully Sir,hat would you call such details?
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/28/2011 @ 6:32 pmIcy Texan,
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/28/2011 @ 6:34 pmThat would be my fault and I am sorry to threadjack. I started out trying to say that the criticism of Sullivan was inappropriate and mentioned the other matter as a similar example of what I thought was a hard to defend position. My bad.
Machinist
I was wondering where you had a right to question the patriotism and personal bravery of the people of the 911 flights that day who didnt try to take over the planes that crashed into buildings
Some would question the veracity and credibility of someone who makes these kinds of statements as well
EricPWJohnson (baa24f) — 2/28/2011 @ 6:35 pmI’d call them “prueient”, or “superfluous”.
Icy Texan (80d439) — 2/28/2011 @ 6:35 pmDiffering opinions, Machinist. Nothing to apologize about. Personally, I feel Sully to be open to endless criticism.
Icy Texan (80d439) — 2/28/2011 @ 6:37 pm“prurient”
Icy Texan (80d439) — 2/28/2011 @ 6:38 pmI read the Daily Dish regularly, but generally skip whatever Sullivan himself writes. What attracts me is the links he posts, especially on non-political matters, and his underbloggers are often worthwhile reads. But minus those links, I wouldn’t be bothering with it.
BTW, my memory of that picture matches Dave in OC’s–the child was a random visitor to Palin’s office, whose face Sullivan digitally obscured to respect those privacy rights of the kid which, when it came to Palin, he refuses to respect.
kishnevi (cc1ec4) — 2/28/2011 @ 6:43 pmEpwj is being a dick again. SHOCKA
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/28/2011 @ 6:44 pmafter the hijackers take over the first casualty is always beverage service
happyfeet (ab5779) — 2/28/2011 @ 6:50 pmComment by EricPWJohnson — 2/28/2011 @ 6:35 pm
I stand by what I said and anyone is free to decide how they feel that effects my credibility. I think I stand in much better light in that respect than you do after claiming that JD was making death threats to you. That was a clear lie and stripped you of whatever shreds of credibility you might have had left. Your opinion at this point means nothing to me.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/28/2011 @ 6:58 pmAnd here I was thinking AS was merely an adipose-laden pestilent catamite.
Brooks (5a0c96) — 2/28/2011 @ 7:04 pmPart of being exceptional is that other people aren’t as exceptional as you. One way to look at that is to weep for those who didn’t get the praise, but it’s also just reality.
Machinist taking pride in the heroism of Flight 93 makes a lot of sense to me. I see no reason for our differences over whether CBS should report the news should lead to so much hostility in every direction. Everyone sane feels terrible for Logan, even with extremely limited information.
I think CBS has awareness of a large number of horrible events that happened at this protest. As always, they don’t want to report the news straight. They want to selectively report things to build a narrative, true or not. If they wanted to report the news straight, they could figure out a way to do so without disrespecting any of the many rape victims at that protest.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/28/2011 @ 7:04 pmI wondered about that, kish, now is Weigel, or Friederdorf, really worth a look, I’ve found they
narciso (bf58f6) — 2/28/2011 @ 7:05 pmare just repackagers of left wing memes
Long story short, Andrianna Sullington longs to have Obama’s caramel-colored baby and resents his inability to provide same; resulting in obsessive resentment of Sarah Palin’s reproductive system.
Gregory of Yardale (db9fb3) — 2/28/2011 @ 7:14 pmMachinist
Whose words are those?
Why they’re yours now aren’t they
JD,
yeah name calling didnt see that coming
EricPWJohnson (baa24f) — 2/28/2011 @ 7:17 pmpassenger: I’d like a nudder apple juice please
hijacker: no you cannot have a nudder
passenger: is this a union thing? God save us all from freaking unions.
hijacker: May Allah save you.
passenger: whatever I just wanted a nudder apple juice.
hijacker: and I have said that no, a nudder apple juice is what you cannot have.
passenger: union jerkface
hijacker: blasphemer
passenger: do you have any headphones left?
happyfeet (ab5779) — 2/28/2011 @ 7:19 pmMachinist
Yes you do seem to be the judge of who is telling the truth and who is not, as far as JD, he did want to throw at me to prove that something was lethal, I know everyone has been trying to explain it for him
because, well it is what it is
So tell us again how those people let those planes crash into the towers?
EricPWJohnson (baa24f) — 2/28/2011 @ 7:20 pmAnother feedback loop of lies and smears and aggressive dishonesty. SHOCKA
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/28/2011 @ 8:20 pmMachinist
> I don’t think I said you were biased,
Well, now you are either 1) being dishonest yourself or 2) don’t understand the plain meaning of your words.
You said I lacked credibility. When I asked if you were questioning my honesty, you said:
> One can be honest and yet lack credibility because one is misinformed or biased.
And then you went on to say:
> My point was that you seemed to be advocating difficult to defend positions because they were expedient and that was not up to the usual standards of this site.
There is no argument there that I lacked information, or had bad information. Just that my positions change according to expediency. Which sure as f— sounds like an accusation of bias to me.
So what the hell am I supposed to think you are saying?
> I do not like the focus on Obama’s birth because right or wrong he has been elected
The reason why I am not interested in his birth certificate is because I think he was born in America. But not because I think the constitutional requirements for office should be ignored. And you are claiming to be principled? You want to ignore the constitution… on principle? I admit that the prospect of a “President Biden” is too scary for words, but the principled thing is to say that if it was ever proven that Obama was not a natural born citizen, we would have to have that reality.
> These are private matters
Whether or not the governor of Alaska has committed a fraud upon the public is NOT a private matter. The reason why sullivan’s trutherism is worthless is because it is stupid, not because it wouldn’t matter if he was right.
And Logan? Sure, it was a private matter, between her, the 20 or so guys who attacked her (speaking hypothetically), the 200 or so guys who watched and did nothing, and the 20 or so soldiers and civilian women who intervened, not to mention the CBS crew she was dragged from or any cell phone video rolling around. *rolls eyes* you got a funny definition of privacy, there.
> Juanita Broaddrick was required to testify about Bill Clinton’s rape of her because of a legal action against Clinton. Do you say she had an obligation to publicize the details earlier so people could use that information for political purposes?
First, I think you are misinformed. As I recall she came forward entirely on her own. Second, yes, I think we have a right to know if our president is a rapist. I think character counts when making the selection of who shall be president, given the enormous power granted to that office. So I am glad she came forward, and I wish she did so sooner.
And notice, you don’t have a problem with her right to so-called privacy being violated in the names of Jones’ sexual harassment suit. So once he is accused of sexual harassment—then that overcomes the privacy element in your mind. But not apparently in any other context. Myself I believe that if we can overcome the value of privacy in one context, we can overcome it in others.
> Must every rape victim publicize the details?
We do publicize the details of every rape. The difference is we usually don’t know who we are talking about.
And you are assuming she is raped. We don’t know that.
> I can’t help but doubt you would demand this of a family member or close associate.
Asked and answered on the other thread.
> I don’t think you would criticize a conservative for not showing an identifiable picture of a politician’s child as part of an attack on them
So because you IMAGINE I would feel differently if the shoe was on the other foot, I am biased. Well, gosh that is conclusive, and not at all biased against me.
And you are ignoring the subtlety I keep pointing out. He didn’t just block out the kid’s face. He made it TRANSPARENT. That is f—ing creepy.
> I will grant I may be wrong about you on this but I think better of you.
You just accused me of bias based on what you THINK I would do, and then you pretend you are giving me the benefit of the doubt? WTF are you talking about?
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/28/2011 @ 8:32 pmComment by narciso — 2/28/2011 @ 7:05 pm
You’re misjudging them. They may arrive at what sound like leftist positions, but they do so by sticking to right wing premises, and most of that involves the War on Terror and Iraq. Wiegel is libertarian, Fredersdorf is a sort of anti-neocon conservative. I recall from Fredersdorf at least some frosty statements about Obamacare and the GM bailout, and I’m pretty sure Wiegel has done the same.
Of course, the fact that I’m a libertarian means I probably agree with them more than you would, but left wing they are not.
kishnevi (a95600) — 2/28/2011 @ 8:38 pm_______________________________________
It’s a window into a disturbed mind.
Not sure if the leftist sentiments found in a high percentage of gays is a manifestation of their sexuality, or visa versa. It is somewhat like the question of what came first: the chicken or the egg?
Beyond that, for a guy to be diddling other guys — certainly as reportedly excessively as HIV-positive Sullivan has done or is doing — already is a bit deranged and unhealthy, analogous to someone who doesn’t mind, say, eating food off the floor of (not to mention the smell of) a public restroom.
Mark (3e3a7c) — 2/28/2011 @ 8:43 pmand everything looks worse in black and white
happyfeet (ab5779) — 2/28/2011 @ 10:11 pmMr. Feets – The Brits favor paisley as I recall.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 2/28/2011 @ 10:25 pmpaisley is the name of a brad and also a park
happyfeet (ab5779) — 2/28/2011 @ 10:34 pmComment by Aaron Worthing — 2/28/2011 @ 8:32 pm
I have tried to be honest but tactful with you but you seem to be raving. Good night.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 3/1/2011 @ 12:30 amIt isn’t right to use a nice monster like Sully
to illustrate a point referring to ‘max glutes’
who takes “loads in the mouth” and “loads in the ass”.
It’s just wrong.
Jack (f9fe53) — 3/1/2011 @ 5:03 amhttp://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-al-qaeda-islamic-emirate-established-in-libya-led-by-former-gitmo-detainee/
narciso (bf58f6) — 3/1/2011 @ 5:44 ammark
he’s not liberal because he caught a VD.
He is liberal because he is gay and felt betrayed by bush and lashed out in anger. up until bush offered up an anti-gay-marriage amendment, he was libertarian but strong on defense. So if his sexuality is tied to his politics, its a case of his self-interest warping everything else.
And i don’t think that is unique to his sexual orientation. Many people treat only one issue as important and make everything else in their politics mercenary upon that point. i don’t have alot of respect for that viewpoint. Whether or not a certain interrogation technique is torture, for instance, has nothing to do with, say, gay marriage. but while i don’t respect it, i recognize it as fairly human.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/1/2011 @ 5:51 amI don’t know that I can get behind that, Aaron. I get that his sexuality is tied directly to why he felt betrayed, but your wording is… Well, “misleading” isn’t the right word, but I hope you understand my meaning.
Also, why the f**k he would be shocked that Evangelical Christian might be against gay marriage is a question best not pondered long, lest your sanity suffer.
At the risk of going all “no true Scotsman”, I don’t think there is any honest libertarian who isn’t strong on defense. While there are “Libertarians” and “libertarians”, they differ largely on their ability to work within a realistic – as opposed to theoretical – world.
This is why, frankly, I don’t consider Ron Paul a libertarian of any flavor or variety – the man is an isolationist at best, and a complete f**king whack-a-doodle at worst.
The difference between my disappointment with Bussh’s suggestion of a anti-Gay Marriage amendment and Sullivan’s was that while I knew he didn’t support Gay Marriage (but supported civil unions), I had hoped he would leave it a state issue.
It wasn’t the position that bothered me, it was his suggested solution to “the problem”. I suspect that Sullivan’s issue with it was the direct opposite.
Scott Jacobs (9bafa1) — 3/1/2011 @ 6:25 amDOMA was a transparent “get out the vote” effort. And it worked like 30 times in 30 states. I don’t think it was ever meant to solve any problem other than Republican turnout. It’s all going to be overturned in courts and them we can call them ‘activist’ judges.
carlitos (01d172) — 3/1/2011 @ 6:29 amscott
> I get that his sexuality is tied directly to why he felt betrayed, but your wording is… Well, “misleading” isn’t the right word, but I hope you understand my meaning.
yeah, what you said is exactly what i was trying to say. he felt betrayed because of his sexuality, because he cares passionately about that one issue.
> At the risk of going all “no true Scotsman”, I don’t think there is any honest libertarian who isn’t strong on defense
i think you are in serious risk right there. i think the right way to think about it is libertarians are trying to define themselves generally, but you have lots of people who say they are libertarian and are weak on defense. i prefer the strong on defense libertarians, but i can’t say who is the true libertarian.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/1/2011 @ 6:32 amThat is not completely accurate, carlitos. DOMA was signed by Clinton, and I doubt he had Republican turnout on his mind when doing so. Many of the State initiatives were a result of Court rulings, though I would grant some had electoral underpinnings.
JD (0d2ffc) — 3/1/2011 @ 6:35 amSorry JD. I meant the individual state efforts and used “DOMA” as shorthand. Sloppy of me.
carlitos (01d172) — 3/1/2011 @ 6:38 amNo.
According to the 1999 United States National Crime Victimization Survey, only 39% of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement officials. When a male is raped , less than 10% are believed to be reported.
carlitos (01d172) — 3/1/2011 @ 6:50 amI think it was pretty obvious that he was talking about reported sexual assaults…
Scott Jacobs (9bafa1) — 3/1/2011 @ 7:05 amYes, you think that.
carlitos (01d172) — 3/1/2011 @ 7:06 amCarl
my bad. I didn’t speak precisely enough. i meant the ones we know of are publicized. and they are.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/1/2011 @ 7:10 amCBS seemed to celebrate the demonstrations in Cairo. When one of thier employees is attacked by those same demonstrators they have, at the very least, the obligation to report what happened and not minimize it.
If the Daily Caller (a conservative news outlet) sent a female reporter to a Tea Party event and she was sexually assualted by a large portion of the crowd while the vast balance of that crowd did nothing to assist her, would the the Caller’s editors be justified in minimizing the story?
Have Blue (854a6e) — 3/1/2011 @ 9:54 amhave
moreover, do you think if CBS news sent one of its reporters to a tea party rally and she was sexually assaulted there, would they have hesitated to cover it.
one guy peacefully brings a gun to a town hall meeting, and nbc amazingly claims it was a sign of white supremacist threats, despite the fact that the gun owner was black.
Of course i am officially preaching to the choir on that point, but oh well…
Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 3/1/2011 @ 2:07 pmIt doesn’t matter what they may have (or would have certainly) done in that case.
All that really matters is a) she was attacked and b) SHE decided what information is released.
Period. If she wants details to get out, she can tell us. If she doesn’t then her employer should keep it’s mouth f**king shut.
She is the one who was attacked. Regardless of our desire for information – and absolutely regardless of what her employer may have done in the hypothetical you described – she should be the only one who gets to make the call.
Scott Jacobs (218307) — 3/1/2011 @ 2:15 pmi prefer the strong on defense libertarians, but i can’t say who is the true libertarian.
First, you need to define what you mean by being strong/weak on defense.
If you mean, maintain a military able to defend the US from attacks and protect US citizens from perils abroad–you would be right, as least among those libertarians who are not dogmatic enough to be against all government. But most libertarians presume that defense against outside aggression is one of three legitimate government functions (the other two being police and a court system that allows dispute resolution/adjudication in the context of the rule of law). The question is not whether we should have a military but what the proper role and extent of that military should be.
If you mean something more than that, you might be wrong. Paul, most libertarians, and what you call isolationism share the basic libertarian view on US foreign policy–that an aggressive foreign policy and an assertive military presence overseas goes hand in hand with big government.
kishnevi (90434f) — 3/1/2011 @ 9:09 pmNot to mention how the US defense budget is one of the biggest, possibly the biggest, loci of pork barrel politics. For them, only a direct and obvious threat calls for military action; for them, we are not obligated to “defend” freedom and democracy all over the world; for them, the reason we are attacked is because our assertive foreign policy is the equivalent of putting a bulls eye on our back. (And you probably realize that I’m one of those people.)
Why is it people always say this? “Anarchists” and not the same thing as “libertarians”.
No, Ron Paul and his ilk believe in massive government interference with free trade, namely in the existence of higher tariffs.
And all of that ignores that while in the short term it might be more expense to preemptively attack a target, is cheaper in the long-run to take the fight off our shores.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/1/2011 @ 9:21 pm