Another facet to despise of Andrew SULLIVAN's wingnuttiness besides his former Shrub-love

[UTUSN]

*************QUOTE*************

RACISM
A Reader’s Guide to Andrew Sullivan’s Defense of Race Science

Oh, dear. America's favorite stoner blogger, Andrew Sullivan, is worried that "p.c. egalitarianism" has "strangled" "the study of intelligence." But what does that mean? Let us help you translate!

A million years ago, when the internet was just a gleam in Tina Brown's eye, Andrew Sullivan edited The New Republic, which was a Serious Magazine that had no time for your Liberal P.C. Dogma, such as "Race Is an Arbitrary and Unscientific Concept" or "Intelligence Is a Difficult Thing to Define, Let Alone Measure." As such, Sullivan gave a cover story to The Bell Curve, a horrendous piece of shoddy sociology about how blacks are not as smart as whites, and neither are as smart as The Chinaman; besides the general philosophical problems with writing a book-length study of the intersection between two variable, difficult-to-define, and scientifically problematic concepts, it was methodologically unsound and its data cherry-picked from a variety of unsavory sources.

It's looked back upon by most people as a profoundly embarrassing episode, even for The New Republic, which thrives on saying silly shit, and yet, Sullivan, who writes as though literally nothing has been written on the subject since, continues to insist on defending not just The Bell Curve but a general investigation into "intelligence." Weirdly, "intelligence," int his case, always seems to mean "the ways that black people are stupid," but I'm sure that's just a coincidence? He's spent the last week telling anyone who will listen that he is totally not a racist, but, look, he's just saying, scientifically, black people are stupider. ....



(Inside link, twenty quotations of SULLIVAN’s with their “translations” by Gawker. )

*************UNQUOTE*************

[markpkessinger]

1. A link would be nice n/t

[UTUSN]

2. Whups!1 Here it is. Pretty good, missing one link in 1000s of O.P.(s)!1 (I'll say it myself)

http://gawker.com/5863453/a-readers-guide-to-andrew-sullivans-defense-of-race-science

[Mimosa]

9. That man is getting the face he deserves.

Hard, oogly.

[SomethingFishy]

3. America's favorite "stoner" blogger...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: That is the funniest fucking thing I have read all day.


Oh yeah he's my favorite alright. And all my friends favorite too.Yep, Andrew Sullivan, King Of The "Stoner" Bloggers... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Let me go smoke a fatty and waste the perfectly good buzz reading tripe from this self loathing asswipe...

[WildNovember]

4. I recced but still zero. The Bell Curve is a steaming pile of shite and so is Sullivan.

Are there Democrats that subscribe to that steaming pile of shite? (either one...)

[UTUSN]

5. He receives some positive citing here at DU. His Wiki bio says he was rated "Liberal"

by (ta-DA) FORBES!1 I say, take whomever at his or her word if they want to apply a label to themselves, as in minority members (like Ruben NAVARRETTE, Alberto GONZALES, Clarence THOMAS, Condo RICE, Colon POWELL). Ever since Poppy BUSH sprung the trap for Dems of finding minority members for nominating as Wingnuts, Dems agonized over how to attack them, calling them Uncle Toms or houseboys or puppets. The answer is full-steam-ahead: If they say they are wingnuts, just attack and oppose them AS WINGNUTS without all the "puppet" talk, albeit so true and obvious.

*************QUOTE*************

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan

....In January 2009, Tunku Varadarajan, Elisabeth Eaves and Hana R. Alberts, writing in Forbes magazine, ranked Sullivan #19 on a list of "The 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media", writing that "he clings unconvincingly to the 'conservative' label even after his fervent endorsement of Obama. His advocacy for gay marriage rights and his tendency to view virtually everything through a 'gay' prism puts him at odds with many on the right."<18>

Sullivan rejected the "liberal" label, on the grounds that he supports a flat tax, rejects progressive taxation as unjust and counter-productive, is skeptical of universal healthcare and supports a free market in healthcare and pharmaceuticals, strongly supports "fighting a war against Jihadist terror", and therefore does not meet Forbes magazine's own criteria for a "liberal", which include support for progressive taxation and universal healthcare and "a certain queasiness about the war on terror." He argued that Forbes writers, including Tunku Varadarajan, whom he called "smart and decent", consider him a liberal because he is "openly and proudly gay" and because "conservatism has become a religious movement" while he does "not believe that any specific form of religion has a veto in determining who is or is not a political conservative in a secular society."<19>

*************UNQUOTE*************

[WildNovember]

6. ...he's not a liberal.

[Mimosa]

7. Sullivan came to the US because the UK was too socialist for him

What else do we need to know?

[WildNovember]

8. Cause, you know, people with great writing skills like his need to be properly rewarded.

Hahahahahahahaha....

He sucks, and so does his writing. A small mind with a small package writing crap for the empire. Synchophantic claptrap, one of the prime cheerleaders for the Iraq invasion. When he's not writing shite for the PTB for the big bucks he extolls the joys of having sex without condoms when you're HIV positive. Now he wants to talk about how stupid black people are (all very scientific, of course, of course!) He puts me in mind of a decadent courtier before the French Revolution.

I just can't say how disgusting I find that man.