Saturday, September 17, 2005

Sullivan gets letters

Andrew Sullivan today put up an email from a reader with a claim so batty that I can't help but wonder if Andrew put it up in order to discredit the rather frightening personality cult it represents:
You ought to give President Bush some slack. He has had to face more in his presidency than arguably any other in the last 100 years. He inherited a recession, 9/11 happened, the Iraq war and this hurricane. He is only human and I think he is doing better than most.
I don't like the big spending nor the illegal immigration crisis. But I do believe the President is a man of integrity facing outstanding and overwhelming problems in his office.
What? Have we forgotten about FDR, who, let's see, faced the Great Depression (let's compare - 6% unemployment in 2003, 25% unemployment in 1932) and the threat of two fascist powers who, rather than using suicide bombings as a tactic of weakness, actually invaded several countries and were on the verge of developing nuclear weapons? Or Truman, who had to deal with the end of WWII, rebuilding Europe, and the beginning of the Cold War? Or even the much-maligned Nixon, who inherited a war still far deadlier to U.S. soldiers than the current one, went to China, and also had a hurricane of his own (Camille, 1969)? Or.. well, I could go on, but you get the point.


Blogger Abiola said...

Perhaps Sullivan has just been the recipient of some spontaneous grassroots outrage: "When it comes to [insert issue here], President Bush is demonstrating genuine leadership ..." (snicker)

9/17/2005 05:19:00 PM  
Blogger Diana said...

Nope. He put it up because he agrees with it.

9/18/2005 05:51:00 PM  
Blogger Andrew said...

God I hope not. I mean he has been taking an increasingly anti-Bush line over the past year and a half; you would think by now he would realize the absurdity of the idea that Bush has faced more than any other president in the last 100 years. (I'm at least thankful that Sullivan's correspondent didn't say "in U.S. history" given the example of, say, Lincoln who had only to face, you know, the bloodiest war in American history!)

By the way, he's just put another email from a reader rebutting the previous email, specifically on the idea that Bush is a man of "integrity."

9/18/2005 07:27:00 PM  
Blogger Diana said...

I would read his disillusionment with Bush this way: he believes that Bush has betrayed conservative principles. Well, I guess he has, but what of Sullivan himself?

Sullivan is a practitioner of the politics of utter selfishness. He's completely in favor of (for example), government investment in, say, AIDS research. (I've never seen him advocate a free market solution to the AIDS crisis, have you?)

But social security? A program that has worked beautifully to end poverty among the elderly? "Encourages dependence on the government." He favored Bush's crackpot plan to "privatize" (i.e., destroy) it. (Argentina here we come.)

How to pay for Katrina? "Cut spending." (In Iraq, Andrew?)


Andrew veers between approaching rationality (perhaps when his testosterone level drops) and reverting to conservo-jerk form.

He practices the journalistic version of 'roid rage.

9/19/2005 10:57:00 AM  
Blogger Andrew said...

I'm not really interested in defending Sullivan, but as far I can tell from a quick Googling of his site, he actually is a supporter of free market approaches to the AIDS crisis, i.e. relying on the profit motive to get pharmaceutical companies to do research into developing new anti-HIV drugs. For example he seems to oppose price controls on anti-HIV drugs or reducing patent protections to allow generic drug production, and blames political pressure on big pharma for a decline in private AIDS research in recent years.

Though, in the course of the googling I did find this rather ironic quote from April 2001: "And how's this from an anonymous "conservative lobbyist": "I certainly don't approve of the homosexual agenda, but I know the president has a different view. He's pretty comfortable with these guys as long as they're on board with the rest of his agenda." I guess I didn't screw up endorsing W after all."

9/19/2005 01:02:00 PM  
Blogger Diana said...

Advocating a free-market solution to HIV wouldn't be hypocritical of Sullivan.* My point was that he is very much in favor of "big government" (his words) solutions for issues that mean a lot to him personally. (Iraq would be another such example.) I haven't committed the Sullivan oevre to memory but I'm positive I've read approving references to direct government expenditures on AIDS research.

My further point is that when the issue means nothing to him, suddenly he turns into a hard-core minarchist. I distinctly remember his disparagement of Social Security as encouraging "dependency." On whose part? Your 80-year-old grandmama?

*(As am I, lest you get the wrong point, I am very much in favor of free-market solutions when they really are solutions.)

9/19/2005 08:09:00 PM  
Blogger Andrew said...

Yea, you're right, he does approve of government expenditures on AIDS research (I think - they've mostly been approving references as you say, not full-throated defenses). At one point he referred to the fact that the Reagan administration one tried to put all the government's money into HIV vaccine development and said something like "imagine if those government fools had done that - money down the drain!" or something to that effect. Maybe if you pressed him on it he would say that he'd rather it was all taken care of by the private sector, but who knows...

I had a post several months ago about the issue of scope v. intensity of government which I think the term "big government" confuses. I guess you might say Sullivan would say the proper scope of government is things that benefit him?

9/19/2005 09:08:00 PM  
Blogger Diana said...

I guess you might say Sullivan would say the proper scope of government is things that benefit him?

That's a clever way to put it!

not full-throated defenses

It would be easier to figure out what he thinks about various subjects if he put a search engine into his blog, which nets him $80K+ per year, wouldn't it?

9/20/2005 04:00:00 PM  
Blogger Andrew said...

Actually (and pardon me if you already know this) you can use Google to search his blog, with the syntax "blah blah" like this.

9/20/2005 11:19:00 PM  
Anonymous viagra price comparison said...

Viagra side effects - Amongst sildenafil's rare but serious adverse effects are: priapism, severe hypotension, myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmias, stroke and increased intraocular pressure. Common side effects include sneezing, headache, flushing, dyspepsia, palpitations and photophobia.

Most detailed generic and brand Viagra price comparison tables in the net.

Generic Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) belongs to a group of medicines that delay the enzymes called phosphodiesterases from working too quickly. The penis is one of the areas where these enzymes work. Viagra is used to treat men who have erectile dysfunction (also called sexual impotence). Sildenafil Citrate is an oral drug for male impotence, also known as erectile dysfunction (ED). It works by dilating blood vessels in the penis, allowing the inflow of blood needed for an erection.

Sildenafil citrate (viagra) is a drug used to treat male erectile dysfunction (impotence) and ulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Viagra is developed by the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. Viagra's primary competitors on the market are tadalafil (Cialis), and vardenafil (Levitra).

If you are constantly squeezing your budget to buy the you need than you might want to consider purchasing online. Compare prices before you buy. Original Pfizer Viagra. Ends all your Problems from top-rated Health & Beauty Supplies stores. Low price Viagra, Cialis, Levitra online non prescription.

Discount generic viagra, generic viagra, discount viagra, generic viagra discount, discounted viagra, discounted generic viagra, cheap viagra, cheap generic viagra, order viagra, order generic viagra, viagra alternative, viagra sale and even 4 free viagra pills online.

5/01/2008 03:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The latter, Web 2.0, is not defined as a static architecture. Web 2.0 can be generally characterized as a common set of architecture and design patterns, which can be implemented in multiple contexts. bu sitede en saglam pornolar izlenir.The list of common patterns includes the Mashup, Collaboration-Participation, Software as a Service (SaaS), Semantic Tagging (folksonomy), and Rich User Experience (also known as Rich Internet Application) patterns among others. These are augmented with themes for software architects such as trusting your users and harnessing collective intelligence. Most Web 2.0 architecture patterns rely on Service Oriented Architecture in order to function

11/03/2010 01:18:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home