Andrew Sullivan, 11:41 am today:

I’m particularly worried that the blogosphere has become far more knee-jerk, shrill and partisan since the days when I first started blogging. Some of that’s healthy and inevitable; but too much is damaging.

Several hours later, Coy Andy reads this quote from President:

President Bush said yesterday that he doesn’t “see how you can be president without a relationship with the Lord,” but that he is always mindful to protect the right of others to worship or not worship.

Mr. Bush told editors and reporters of The Washington Times yesterday in an interview in the Oval Office that many in the public misunderstand the role of faith in his life and his view of the proper relationship between religion and the government.

“I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you’re not equally as patriotic if you’re not a religious person,” Mr. Bush said. “I’ve never said that. I’ve never acted like that. I think that’s just the way it is.

“On the other hand, I think more and more people understand the importance of faith in their life,” he said. “America is a remarkable place when it comes to religion and faith. We had people come to our rallies who were there specifically to say, ‘I’m here to pray for you, let you know I’m praying for you.’ And I was very grateful about that.”

Andy’s response, 2:54 pm:

So, out of his beneficence, he won’t trample on others’ religious freedom. But the White House? That’s for Christians only. No Jews? Or atheists? Notice also the evangelical notion of a personal “relationship” with the Lord. That also indicates suspicion of those Christians with different approaches to the divine. I must say this is a new level of religio-political fusion in this administration. To restrict the presidency to a particular religious faith is anathema to this country’s traditions and to the task of toleration. The president surely needs to retract the statement.

What an asshole. Where did the President says no jews or atheists need apply? What suggests suspicion? Where is he restricting the office to those of a specific faith? All he said was that he does not understand how someone could be president without having a strong reliance on faith and concomitant belief in God.

I am pretty areligious (a helluva lot closer to atheist than Andy is), and I understood his damned remarks. Do anti-retro virals make you nuts, or has Andy been this big of an asshole all along and his true colors are finally showing? All he does anymore is willfully distort what other people say.

And what kills me is he makes 100k a year through tips and donations. Maybe I should go insane publicly- might sell some blogads or get me tips.

Two new forays into stupid from Adnrew today. Here they are in order.

#1.) THE FACE OF REPRESSION: Here’s a photo of an Iranian blogger, one of more than 20 detained by the theo-fascists for freedom of expression. Money quote: “My interrogator punched me in the head and stomach and kicked me in the back many times to force me confess to having illegal sex and endangered national security through my writings, Mazrouei said.” He was blindfolded for 66 days in solitary confinement. And yes, it pains me that now every defender of the Islamists can say that U.S. custody is just as bad as the Iranians – and, in many cases, far worse. We have squandered a part of the critical moral difference that justifies our fight.

No, petunia, ‘every defender of the Islamists’ CAN NOT ‘say that U.S. custody is just as bad as the Iranians – and, in many cases, far worse.’ Well- they can say it, but they are either lying or as stupid as you are choosing to be on this issue. I mean, you seriously are not going to compare years of unrepentant torture, to include stonings, mass executions, etc., with regrettable but seemingly isolated incidents of degradation and low-scale torture.

This is not condoning or white-washing the evil that was committed at Abu Ghraib, but how about some perspective. The last I checked, our entire nation was outraged, we were investigating the charges, and people were on trial. That would tend to point to some difference between us and the Islamists.

#2.)

“WHERE HE PUT HIS WING-WANG”: This, apparently, is Glenn Reynold’s view of what being gay is. And Glenn is on the side of the angels in this. It’s enough to make you despair.

Apparently anything is enough to make America’s #1 gay advocate despair, because here is Glenn’s post:

WAS LINCOLN GAY? Andrew Sullivan cares, and so do the folks at The Weekly Standard. I can’t seem to, though. The guy saved the nation, and I’m supposed to care about where he put his wing-wang?

Pretty clearly, Glenn was stating that he doesn’t give a shit if Lincoln was gay or not, and given Glenn’s track record in favor of gay equality, it takes some work to find reason for despair.

Curiously, Andrew’s ‘despair’ seems to be centered around Glenn’s statement regarding Lincoln’s wing-wang. Glenn’s p[osition, from my standpoint is the only logical position to take. Andrew is consistently (and correctly) railing for equal treatemnt and equal rights, and the thrust (no pun intended) of his argument is that homosexuals are human beings, and therefore no different heterosexuals. Except for that little issue of where they (as the Instaprof so delicately stated) stick their ‘wing-wang.’

Unless there is something else that systematically makes homosexuals different from heterosexuals, I think Glenn’s position (ignore punb possibilities, please) is the enlightened one here- the only difference between the two collective groups is the placement of the ‘wing-wang’ during sexual activities.

Well- one group may have more fashion sense and a love of show tunes, but I learned that from Bravo!