Update: A reshuffle of the art to meet the problem Yutsano pointed out in the first comment below. I’ve got a slightly different order up at the copy of this post at Inverse Square, if anyone cares. (2) Changed the first pic again, for something that pleased my eye more.
Just to jump onto the false equivalence bandwagon, here’s another reason why, unlike John, I don’t love Andrew Sullivan’s work.
__
John’s comment, y’all remember, came in the context of his righteous snort of derision at the thought of one of Sully’s annual awards for bad behavior going to TBogg for a post in which the Bassett Man righteously excoriated the loathesome Bill Kristol. (Which, having campaigned for the honor, TBogg won, hurray!)
__
So why don’t I don’t love Sully?
__
Because for all that I respect his craft accomplishments — the Dish really is a hugely innovative take on journalism and opinion making in our brave new digital era — and acknowledge his non-craziness (most of the time) and his willingness to tackle crucial subjects like torture, he still seems to me to be a deeply sloppy thinker.
__
Case in point, this post, titled “The Borking of Kagan,” in which he shows off truly impressive intellectual incoherence, combined with a genuinely nasty attempt to carry the water of the worst on the right if the opportunity affords to bash a hippie or two. (Why target this post, now seven months gone? Because Sullivan himself touted it as one of his posts of the year, directing his readers to take another look just last Wednesday.)
__
Sullivan writes of his attempt to ascertain Elena Kagan’s sexual identity (or self-identification) that,
Will Saletan pens the most penetrating and persuasive critique of my question as to the emotional orientation of Elena Kagan. He puts it better than I, but his argument is essentially that the personal facts of a supreme court nominee can lead to unending and cruel and prejudiced exposure, in a manner that distorts the process and wounds the person. He reminds me of the religious inquisition of the agnostic Robert Bork. It is indeed vile. What was done to Clarence Thomas was, in my view, viler – although I remain convinced that Anita Hill was telling the truth.
There’s a lot more that one can dispute in Sullivan’s post, but focus here on just this one bit of wretched rhetorical posturing.
__
(note: Below the jump you will see a sixteenth century painting depicting an allegory of justice in the form of a well-armed naked woman. Hence, perhaps, NSFW)