Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com


Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Jon Ekdahl 2026
Jay Guevara 2025
Jim Sunk New Dawn 2025
Jewells45 2025
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups





















« Now Twenty Towns Around Paris Engulfed In Rioting | Main | [ C O R R E C T E D ] Michael Moore Owns Two Thousand Shares... of Halliburton? »
November 03, 2005

Email of the Day: Andrew Sullivan, Bipolar Bloviator

I've said similar stuff before, but I'll post alex's musings on Excitable Boy:

I hate to think what Andrew Sullivan's exes must all have endured--the man simply has no 'lukewarm' valve--he's either scalding hot or freezing cold. There's just no getting out of a relationship with a man like that on a 'lets be friends' level--I suspect Sullivan's not on speaking terms with a single old boyfriend. And whether or not Sullivan ever decides to settle down for good with the current boyfriend (which, by MA law, he can do if he cares to), he's certainly not about to marry any particular idea and settle down with it any time soon, or accept responsibility for any idea after he's fallen out of love with it--the man's an intellectual Casanova.

It's one thing to be a genuine iconoclast like Sullivan's hero Orwell--that is, to have consistent, strong personal beliefs which simply don't fit neatly into any one prepackaged ideology. It's one thing to have one major life-changing 'conversion' experience a la Christopher Hitchens. It's another thing entirely to exist with one's beliefs in a constant, unexplained, unrestrained, and uninterrogated state of flux.

Sullivan's hardly politically consistent--he reliably self-defines as conservative, but seems to expect the term to bend to his own ever-changing definition--for Sullivan, 'conservative' (like 'Catholic') is defined as 'wherever and whatever Andrew Sullivan now is'.

Exactly. It's one thing to have a change of mind. But usually people who do are a bit apologetic, a bit embarassed, and have a bit of sympathy for their one-time allies who they've now left behind. Were I to suddenly decide Bush erred in going to war with Iraq, I would make my case, but I would certainly not be venomous to war-supporters, whose opinion I had shared just a few weeks before.

With Sullivan, it's unapologetic, unabased self-righteousness on every single idea that enters his brain, even regarding those upon which he had the precise opposite opinion a few months ago.

The man went from sarcastically mocking those concerned with abusing terrorists to screeching about the US being a "rogue state" without ever proceeding through even a "conflicted rumination" phase.

The man doesn't have a philosophy. He has a Tiger Beat What's Hot/What's Not list in his brain that changes as quickly as Madonna's costumes at a concert-slash-kabbalah-ceremony.

And the emotion...! My god, the emotion! I found it exhausting to even attempt parodying Sullivan's, let us say, rather passionate form of "analysis." Who the hell can be that outraged and/or exhilerated that many times a day? He's like a five-year-old kid whose every schoolday features three Christmasses and three trips to the dentist.

I suppose one could say he's being "honest," giving us the "unfiltered Sullivan," except 1) he's pretty dishonest (still making his mind up about Bush, $100,000 bandwidth costs, etc.) and 2) please, if I must have Sullivan at all, let me have a filter. A really, really strong one.

Only an absolute narcissist could be so in love with his own musings, and so convinced of the complete righteousness of crap he just thought up five seconds ago.

Andrew Sullivan is the high priest of his own personal Cult of Personality.


posted by Ace at 06:27 PM
Comments



One of the many, many things that bothers me about the Excitable One is his absolute refusal to see anyone but himself acting in good faith. If you disagree with homosexuality, you're not acting out of religious conviction, you're a theocrat bent on stripping gays and lesbians of their civil rights.

I simply cannot read his rants anymore. The man has no political conviction - just vitriol for anyone who isn't exactly just like him on every issue.

Posted by: Slublog on November 3, 2005 06:47 PM

Yeah, Don Luskin pointed that out years ago, and I followed up on the point. Sullivan's rhetoric is nonstop ad hominem (yes, okay, mine too) but then, get this, interrupted by pious calls for "civility" in debate.

One or the other, asshole. One or the other.

Posted by: ace on November 3, 2005 06:49 PM

You called Sullivan an "asshole?" What are you, some kind of bigot sending subliminal messages that gays and lesbians are less deserving of civil rights than you are?!?

Friggin' theocrat.

Posted by: Slublog on November 3, 2005 06:52 PM

Andrew Sullivan is the high priest of his own personal Cult of Personality.

At the rate his traffic is dropping off, Andy will be ready for his close-up very soon, Mr. DeMille.

Posted by: BumperStickerist on November 3, 2005 07:13 PM

You're right about his accusations of bad faith. Goldstein wrote today about the same trend in feminist bloggers, but Sullivan's as guilty of it as they are.

I think a big reason he blows so hot and cold is because of the attention it gets him. That's not to say his opinions aren't honestly held, but the guy fancies himself as highly infuential -- and there's not much influence to be had in cautious, circumspect criticism. Note that when OJR took a poll of A-list bloggers in 2003 to find out who was the most influential of them all, Sullivan pointed to ... himself. Not an untenable argument, especially at the time, but it does make you wonder how heavily this stuff weighs in his decision to drop bombs about "rogue states" and such.

Posted by: Allah on November 3, 2005 07:16 PM
At the rate his traffic is dropping off

According to Truth Laid Bear, he's getting 72,000+ hits a day, BS. Hewitt, by comparison, only gets 50,000.

Posted by: Allah on November 3, 2005 07:21 PM

One or the other, asshole. One or the other.--Ace


Right you are ,sir, right you are. It is blindingly self-worshipping to engage in the type of arguments Sullivan makes as a matter of course, and then turn around and pat oneself on the back as one pleads that everyone else show some class.

Posted by: dougf on November 3, 2005 07:26 PM

Yet he's a frequent commentator on Chris Matthews show (yah yah, I know no one watches it but..) representing the more conservative viewpoint. Allegedly. I guess according to Chris, Andy is indeed conservative.

Posted by: Kina on November 3, 2005 07:27 PM

I really can't think of one conservative blogger who even links to his postings anymore....at least not any self-respecting ones.

Other than his appearances on a fellow effeminate male's cable program and the occasional talking head stint, he's fast becoming a non-player in the world of serious political commentary.

Personally, I find his nearly constant gay-baiting antics as equally annoying as Jesse Jackson's race-baiting rants.

Just the name of his blog alone, The Daily Dish, was enough to annoy the fuck out of me.

Perhaps Tammy Bruce should've reconsidered naming her blog The Carpetlicker Conservative....Tee Hee!.....Get it?...she's a lesbian and that would be soooooo tongue in cheek! Like oh my gawwwwd!

Posted by: The Ugly American on November 3, 2005 07:34 PM

The Ugly American: Excitable Andy probably should just call it "Felch Blog". That's pretty "tongue in cheek", too.

Sulli sees the world through Sperm-Colored Glasses. IOW, his analysis on every issue is just a bit clouded. When his homosexuality is a major factor in how he thinks about everything from the war to friggin' party invitations, it is no wonder he's so gobsmackingly difficult to put up with these days.

Posted by: Sharkman on November 3, 2005 08:02 PM

Umm... it's "WHOM they've now left behind."

Posted by: Mark V. on November 3, 2005 09:47 PM

I quit reading Sullivan's scream-a-palooza after he took such umbrage with "The Passion of the Christ". He couldn't just say he didn't like the film and explain why. No, he had to accuse Mel Gibson of being some closeted sexual sadist. Gibson wasn't allowed to make an uncompromising movie according to his own vision, he was pushing some highbrow snuff film on an unsuspecting America. What a fucking self-righteous douche.

Posted by: UGAdawg on November 3, 2005 10:01 PM

I imposed a Sullivan ban on myself back in January, after he decided to define the gay slang term "santorum" for us. I said "no more" at that point, this man has nothing of value to say.

In March, I did the same thing for O-Dub.

Yeah, I occasionally peek to see what they're writing about, but only to laugh at them. No linkage, no promoting them, no writing angry screeds attacking them. They are too ridiculous, and life is too short. I was getting too worked up over their posts, so I simply said "no more." I don't regret it at all.

Next up, Juan Cole. The guy is just pure negativity, defeatism, and gloom. He's a soul-destroying prick who feels obligated to note every last car bomb, and who cannot acknowledge anything positive that came out of the fall of Saddam. I'm done with him. In my world, he's officially a non-person.

Posted by: The Colossus on November 3, 2005 10:41 PM

I never was a fan of Sullivans, but you're way too hard on the guy. He's just a poseur who is very good at self promotion. Why anyone ever took this weirdo seriously at any time is beyond me. He is entertaining to some, sort of like a watching a guy eat his own vomit. The only constant with Sullivan is that he will say anything that will get him attention.

Posted by: john on November 3, 2005 11:58 PM

I see the ASFOA has been on Gobsmack for a while, now. I would imagine anyone on that constant a level that high must be counting his heartbeats before the big one.

Posted by: Tom M on November 4, 2005 12:14 AM

Allah: like Hewitt's on an upward trend?

Posted by: someone on November 4, 2005 03:57 AM

Andrew is just peeved that not only hasn’t he been invited to a White House dinner, but he hasn’t even been invited to join the Pajama Media.

Posted by: tefta on November 4, 2005 05:48 AM

Seems like Sullivan's mind is so twisted by BDS that he can't think straight about Bush. Which makes me wonder: Was his thinking this bad back when I agreed with him? Objectivity don't come easy.

Posted by: Myrhaf on November 4, 2005 08:15 AM

Ace = Theocon

He probably supports putting fake menstral blood on terrorists, to torture them by making them think they had contact with evil vaginas.

Anyone who supports vaginal contact is a Theocon. You are worse than Hitler.

Posted by: on November 4, 2005 08:56 AM


Ace,
Please recall Mr. Sullivan gets regular depo-testosterone shots(and talks of how,well.manly they make him feel).My point is that the depo shots give a supra-physiologic level immediately post injection followed by a leveling into the normal range of testosterone followed by a sub physiologic level if the initial level was high enough to suppress the gonadotropins.To keep from getting the sub physiologic days one must schedule shots more closely together.(And yes,I'm a MD)
If Mr. Sullivan is getting "too much" testosterone
he has a real reason for being hyper.

Posted by: murgen on November 4, 2005 10:57 AM

I've really been enjoying your site recently, definately real amusing and fun but you spend an inordinate ammount of time posting about excitable Andy. Some of them are amusing (I liked the menstrual post) but a lot of them seem a little repetative(I get it, Andy's a mood fakin' conservative, that's why I stopped reading his site too). Do you at least get a reward named after you on Andy's site?

Props for the lack of homo cracks in this post. I find it almost impossible to make a critisism of Sully without something about riding a baloney poney or packing fudge. Maybe its how he represents so many steriotypes.

Posted by: Shtetl G on November 4, 2005 11:00 AM

There weren't any homo cracks on this thread? Damn! Whose turn was it?!?

(Heh heh. He said "homo cracks")

Posted by: S. Weasel on November 4, 2005 11:02 AM

Ace, I'm glad you've figured out that Sullivan is narcissistic, not solipsistic.

Posted by: on November 4, 2005 06:14 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?








Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]
Top Headlines
You know we "joke" about the GOPe just "conserving" leftist things?
David French just posted:

Populists ask what conservativism has ever conserved?
Well its about to conserve birthright citizenship!
Posted by: 18-1

I couldn't hate this queen of the cuck-chair more if it paid seven figures and came with a corner office.
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: CBD and Sefton talk birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS, no boots in Iran, Artemis II and refocusing NASA, the NBA's hatred of everything non-woke, and more!
In more marketing for Project Hail Mary, scientists say they've found the biosigns indicating life growing on an alien planet. It's not proof, just signatures of chemicals that are produced by biological metabolism, and it could be nothing, but scientists think it's a strong sign that this planet is inhabited by something.
In a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of scientists announced the detection of dimethyl sulfide (along with a similar detection of dimethyl disulfide) in the atmosphere of an exoplanet called K2-18b. This is actually the second detection of dimethyl sulfide made on this planet, following a tentative detection in 2023.
Tons of chemicals are detected in the atmospheres of celestial objects every day. But dimethyl sulfide is different, because on Earth, it's only produced by living organisms.
"It is a shock to the system," Nikku Madhusudhan, first author on the paper, told the New York Times. "We spent an enormous amount of time just trying to get rid of the signal."

He means they tried to prove the signal was caused by things other than dimethyl sulfide but they could not.
Artemis moon shot a go, scheduled for 6:24 Eastern time tonight
Great marketing arranged by Amazon to promote Project Hail Mary. Okay not really but it does work out that way.
What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*
Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.
A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.
The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.
Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: Sefton and CBD talk about how would a peace treaty with Iran work, Democrats defending murderers and rapists, The GOP vs. Dem bench for 2028, composting bodies? And more!
Oh, I forgot to mention this quote from Pete Hegseth, reported by Roger Kimball: "We are sharing the ocean with the Iranian Navy. We're giving them the bottom half."
Forgotten 80s Mystery Click: Red Leather Suit and Sweatband Edition
And I was here to please
I'm even on knees
Makin' love to whoever I please
I gotta do it my way
Or no way at all
Tomorrow is March 25th, "Tolkien Reading Day," because March 25th is the day when the Ring is destroyed in the book. I think I'm going to start the Hobbit tomorrow and read all four books this time.
The only bad part of the trilogy are the Frodo/Sam chapters in The Two Towers. They're repetitive, slow, and mostly about the weather and terrain. But most everything else is good. Weirdly, the Frodo-Sam chapters in Return of the King are exciting and action-packed and among the best in the trilogy. (Though the chapters with everyone else in Return of the King get pretty slow again. Mostly people talking about marching towards war, and then marching towards war.)
Recent Comments
TheCatBitesMyToe: "Right now my toe doesn't care about war ..."

Yudhishthira's Dice: "Charlie Kirk- "Islam is not compatible with wester ..."

Lizzy [/i]: "Good morning! ..."

Anonosaurus Wrecks, Damn It Feels Good to Be a Trumpster! [/s] [/i] [/u] [/b]: "ID cards are necessary sometimes. LOL: Some Pe ..."

Sponge - F*ck Cancer: "[i] It does not sound in anyway like Skeletor. An ..."

SMOD: "Iranian villagers protect downed U.S. airman, whil ..."

stu-mick-o-sucks: "sock off ..."

People's Hippo Voice: "I...don't think there's much to escalate with anym ..."

Stateless - He ain't heavy, he's my dog. Old, but full of life.: "MS Now made me laugh this morning too. They had ..."

Anna Puma: "Sponge It does not sound in anyway like Skeleto ..."

NR Pax: "You could take the conspiracy nuts up on a rocket, ..."

Sponge - F*ck Cancer: "[i]6/1/25 Charlie Kirk- "Islam is not compatible w ..."

Bloggers in Arms
Some Humorous Asides
Archives