... when he wrote:
The usual would-be policeman of Washington's discourse on all things to do with Israel, Jeffrey Goldberg, takes a break from the Jewish holidays to consign yet another member of the thinking classes to the ranks of "something much darker."
... which Goldberg called a "low blow" 8 days ago. Today,
Sullivan is all "apologies if I was misunderstood." And he denies membership in "the thought-police" while maintaining the presumption that Goldberg belongs:
... I will occasionally note homophobia - but usually of the obvious, fanatical, religious kind, not parsing metaphors of fellow columnists for "dog-whistles" and "code". And I have a long record of exactly the same for anti-Semitism....
...I have long, relentlessly lambasted the main gay rights lobby, HRC, while Goldblog is always anti-anti-AIPAC, just as he is always anti-anti-settlements.
... Let me just say that when Goldblog treats John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Kenneth Waltz, Phil Weiss, or Daniel Larison in the same way I treat my opponents on the issue of marriage rights, I will agree that he is not a member of the thought-police....
By the way, Goldberg calls himself "Goldblog," so that's not a dog-whistle (or telling typo).
पोस्ट्स
४२ टिप्पण्या:
EMD said...
Where's the missing link?
And I don't mean George Burns.
9/28/12 10:59 AM
edutcher said...
Deny all he wants.
9/28/12 10:59 AM
cubanbob said...
Ann where is the link?
9/28/12 10:59 AM
pbAndjFellowRepublican said...
Is this some sort of metaphysical posting.
If so, I don't get it.
9/28/12 11:02 AM
Matthew Sablan said...
Maybe he was just being ironic!
9/28/12 11:02 AM
Matthew Sablan said...
(Yes, I'm saying that without the link because, hey, topical.)
9/28/12 11:02 AM
Palladian said...
The English have long been virulent Jew-haters. That's one reason Muslim immigrants fit in so well there.
So Andrew Sullivan's still around? I hadn't noticed.
9/28/12 11:05 AM
Tom said...
Maybe Sullivan is just making a global confession about all of his rantings (I refuse to call them writings) so no direct link is needed.
9/28/12 11:05 AM
Palladian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
9/28/12 11:07 AM
Bryan C said...
The Rabbis are restless tonight. I say we bring this Sullivan chap in for questioning. Just to be sure.
9/28/12 11:07 AM
Palladian said...
Did Sullivan discover a Likudnik synagogue inside Sarah Palin's uterus?
9/28/12 11:08 AM
phx said...
Paul Ryan denies posing with a goat.
9/28/12 11:10 AM
Don't Tread 2012 said...
Linkless, cruel neutrality.
9/28/12 11:10 AM
Palladian said...
Andrew Sullivan is one of those wonderful people that can be justifiably insulted even in the absence of a linked article for context.
9/28/12 11:11 AM
Sorry, I thought I'd lost the beginning of this post when in fact I must have accidentally published.
I've recopied your comments here, including all the ones that are mystified by the content of the post with no text.
Sigh. Little Miss Sullivan grasping for relevancy again.
BTW, what's going on with blogger? Loading comments is hit or miss. Mostly miss.
Accessing Althouse comments was showing "Whoops, that's an error" for the last hour or so.
Are things back to normal?
"Andrew Sullivan denies that there was any anti-Semitic meaning..."
Was he doing the "Mohel Chop" outside a political rally or something?
Thanks but you probably didn't have to copy my stupid comment. Don't tread 2012's comment was pretty good though.
I'm going to defend Andrew Sullivan here.
Goldberg is a really, really, really sensitive Jew. He does have a history of overreacting to perceived slights.
Case in point is his attempt to get C-SPAN to totally screen out callers who would were going to say something anti-Semitic or anti-Israel which might be argued to be anti-Semitic.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/01/c-span-covers-itself-in-shame/33011/
He refused to understand that C-SPAN was going to allow people their say. He went on about it for a couple of blog posts completely stupid to his own stupidity.
Althouse:
Please read more carefully. There is no charge of anti-Semitism and no denial of anti-Semitism. Goldberg half-jokingly takes offense at being accused of blogging on Rosh Hashanah, which would suggest that he is not an observant Jew. In other words, Goldberg is pretending to take offense at being accused of not being Jewish enough, which is hardly an anti-Semitic accusation. Sullivan, goyishly confused, apologizes for suggesting that Goldberg was blogging on Rosh Hashanah. Then they go on to debate whether Maureen Dowd is anti-Semitic.
The irony here is that you have made the same mistake Andrew made -- misunderstanding how a Jew would interpret the idea of blogging on Rosh Hashanah. A perfectly forgivable mistake which nobody -- and certainly not Jeffrey Goldberg or myself -- would consider anti-Semitic.
I don't care to examine all of Sullivan's claims but to state that Jeffrey Goldberg is "anti-anti settlements" is so absurd that I don't know how to respond.
Goldberg has ALWAYS denounced the settler's movements and ALWAYS condemned it as an obstacle towards peace.
Do a search and you'll see for yourself.
Sullivan's claim is, as I said, absurd.
He's been Goldfingered!
And there I thought you were just refusing to link Sullivan, and making anyone sufficiently curious to find out what you were talking about look it up ourselves.
It was interesting to read, all the same. Can anyone seriously claim that "neocon" doesn't suggest Jewish power/influence? Way back when the term "neoconservative" first appeared (early 90s or maybe even late 80s), it described a handful of leftists-turned-conservatives, of whom most were Jewish (Norman Podhoretz and the other folks at Commentary and the AJC), though some weren't (e.g., Fr. Richard John Neuhaus).
By now, it's all but impossible to find someone who uses "neocon" who can define it, or even hazily indicate what it's meant to convey. It's the all-purpose epithet for anyone right-of-center.
I was amused by the comments at Goldberg's article. I couldn't have written better parodies of smug liberal cognoscenti if I tried, "W is dumb," etc.
Sullivan is anti anti-gay acceptance. Ergo: the Judeo-Christian scriptures are his enemy.
But Sullivan seems to be unconscious of his acceptance of the low level of Jew envy that creeps into most English speaking world's view.
I bet if Sullivan lived in Israel, then he would develop great writing skills on the "Kill The Jews" issue, in favor of letting the Jews live.
Since 1945 the Jews's actual crime of being the source of the Law of Moses and of the Messiah is not seen as a sufficient "torture them all to death" justification after all.
"Please read more carefully. There is no charge of anti-Semitism and no denial of anti-Semitism. Goldberg half-jokingly takes offense at being accused of blogging on Rosh Hashanah, which would suggest that he is not an observant Jew. In other words, Goldberg is pretending to take offense at being accused of not being Jewish enough, which is hardly an anti-Semitic accusation. Sullivan, goyishly confused, apologizes for suggesting that Goldberg was blogging on Rosh Hashanah. Then they go on to debate whether Maureen Dowd is anti-Semitic."
You know, I was just reading this thing on Poe's Law, based on that "Stench" satire the other day.
Whatever. I started at Sullivan's place. I saw that Goldberg was offended but making a show of taking it lightly, but perhaps he was making a show of being offended. Who knows?
In the realm of anti-Semitism, it's very interesting, since the Jewish people have often used humor as a defense.
I don't see Sullivan as being very humorous at all. As for Goldberg, I don't really know. Don't read him much.
This was the post that screwed up my computer for a couple hours, so I'm sorry I ever noticed it at all.
The subject of whether Maureen Dowd wrote an anti-Semitic column was a serious issue recently. (I defended her) against the charge.
Anyway, I see you say "half-jokingly"... and that gives up the whole inquiry. How am I supposed to read more closely and get anywhere closer to what these 2 men had in mind?
Frankly, I'm tired of writers/speakers who put crap out and then say can't you perceive satire, etc.
You need to write better if that's your aim. I'm not going to read mediocre stuff and say it doesn't count as meaning what it says. They don't deserve it.
AIDSE-dementia-riddled Andy "the child molester" Sullivan flais every so flagrantly beyond the realm of p.c. and gets smacked down. Meanwhile he demands p.c. talk on all things child molester related. Gutter-trash hypocrite.
And then tries the tried and true lefty non-apology "I'm sorry if I was misunderstood." Because it's not Andy's fault ever. He's a lefty now, it's never their fault!
What a piece of trash he is.
traditionalguy said...
Sullivan is anti anti-gay acceptance. Ergo: the Judeo-Christian scriptures are his enemy.
Entirely plausible. Sullivan has also become predictable and dour.
Fight the Dour!
I don't see Sullivan as being very humorous at all. As for Goldberg, I don't really know. Don't read him much.
and
Anyway, I see you say "half-jokingly"... and that gives up the whole inquiry. How am I supposed to read more closely and get anywhere closer to what these 2 men had in mind?
Frankly, I'm tired of writers/speakers who put crap out and then say can't you perceive satire, etc.
You need to write better if that's your aim. I'm not going to read mediocre stuff and say it doesn't count as meaning what it says. They don't deserve it.
I guess you’re partly referring to the recent Roger Simon “stench” thing when you speak of writers putting crap out there and then claiming it was satire that all but the dimmest could see.
I don’t think it’s fair at all to accuse Goldberg of this. If you were a regular reader of his stuff, you’d know he often puts a humorous twist on things in his blog posts, and a lot when he’s dealing with Sullivan’s anti-Semitic remarks. And, in addition to his blog, he also does a monthly agony-aunt advice column for The Atlantic. Simon, on the other hand, doesn’t do humor; he’s supposed to be a straight, no-nonsense political reporter.
My Dear Lady you know that Randy Andy is not an Anti-semite.
You can tell them when you see them. Like your frequent and valued contributors Cedarford and Inga the She-wolf.
They are not hard to spot.
Sullivan merely hates vaginas.
Sarah Palins in paticular.
Professor Althouse:
"How am I supposed to read more closely and get anywhere closer to what these 2 men had in mind?"
Well, Goldberg didn't accuse Sullivan of anti-Semitism, jokingly or otherwise, and Sullivan, who I agree doesn't have much of a sense of humor, didn't apologize for anti-Semitism. So I guess you could start by leaving out the part about how Goldberg accused Sullivan of anti-Semitism and Sullivan apologized for it.
in the same way I treat my opponents on the issue of marriage rights
I'm not sure how to react to that sentence, given that Sullivan treats his "opponents on the issue of marriage rights" like they were a tiny moustache and a pair of jackboots away from being Nazis.
Re: the video that accompanies the article: whoever came up with the name Walter Sobchak for the converted Jew played by John Goodman in The Big Lebowski had a wicked sense of humor. Guaranteed no Walter Sobchak ever so much as entertained the notion. A lost and confused Katerina Sobchak, possibly. But a Walter Sobchak, never.
Ann wrote:
You need to write better if that's your aim. I'm not going to read mediocre stuff and say it doesn't count as meaning what it says. They don't deserve it.
Let us all thank the Modern Language Association for making writers like Goldberg, Sullivan, Simon et al. possible.
Baron Zemo said...
Sullivan merely hates vaginas.
Sarah Palins in paticular.
That's because he wishes he had one.
I really don't know what to say about crap writing that's taken at face value, I do so much of it myself, I just don't know. I apologize for any mischief I may have caused myself by engaging in this sort of thing. For example, today, if you might question my claim that the potato is clearly 7 feet long when I put a ruler right there and show that it's seven inches. And then say the harvesting gash in the potato indicates the potato chick inside is dead and the potato must be discarded, well that's an obvious lie innit, but if it should cause some confusion I do apologize. Stupid.
Baron, I was married to a Jewish man and he is the father of my four children, how would this make me an anti Semite?
Ustedes, tan tanto demasiado mucho
Likudnik synagog. Mohel chop. Jajajajajajajajaja jejeje.
You see, Likud are the right wing and Mojel are the circumcision guys. That's why these commenters are so hilarious and keep us in stitches.
Who's Andrew Sullivan?
I was married to a Jewish man and he is the father of my four children, how would this make me an anti Semite?
Doesn’t give you automatic immunization against the sickness.
Lord Snowdon (Queen’s Elizabeths’s former brother-in-law), who is a Jew, said this to his once wife, Princess Margaret: “You look like a Jewish manicurist and I hate you.”
Jo, the only one who has a sickness is Baron Zemo. I love Jewish people, and have some very handsome ones to vouch for me.
At the White House, we have a love-fest with Andy Sullivan. We love him. His support for the POTUS has been ROCK-SOLID since SPRING of 2008.
We consider him as OUR FRIEND AND AN ALLY.
We expect to give him a Presidential Medal of Honor give his UK roots, his gay life-style, his support for all things POTUS.
Andy, you are the STAR of this WH.
In the Goldberg-Sullivan-Althouse world intelligent discourse consists of figuring out who is (and who isn't) a racist-homophobe-sexist-antisemite.
Fascinating.
America's Politico said...
At the White House, we have a love-fest with Andy Sullivan. We love him. His support for the POTUS has been ROCK-SOLID since SPRING of 2008.
LOL! Good one, AP.
You can tell them when you see them. Like your frequent and valued contributors Cedarford and Inga the She-wolf.
I have to admit this was very funny Baron. Of course to me, Allie is just a nitwit.
Inga, I like you. Some of my relatives are Jewish. I am Presbyterian.
A fight between the last two people who regularly read Atlantic since McArdle left. How exhilarating.
A fight between the last two people who regularly read Atlantic since McArdle left. How exhilarating.
Since 1945 the Jews's actual crime of being the source of the Law of Moses and of the Messiah is not seen as a sufficient "torture them all to death" justification after all
Since 1945 the Jew's actual crime has been enough of them survived to create a state.
Fuckin' hebes.
Since when did Sullivan say anything worth discussion?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा