Sullivan's was probably the first blog that I ever visited, and I visited it daily. However, I found that, over time, during the early and mid part of 2004, he became so increasingly weepy and screechy about Abu Ghraib, gay marriage, Bush, Abu Ghraib, gay marriage, Rumsfeld, Abu Ghraib, gay marriage, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum that I stopped reading his blog. After his, in my opinion, weasel job on support for Kerry in lieu of Bush, I removed his link from my blogroll. "Take that!", says I.
In total ignorance of the old saw "my enemy is my enemy for fucking ever" (Hu Flung Poo, Manchuria, 10,001 B.C.), or perhaps in spite of it, he writes in the Sunday Times an opinion piece that is worth reading. No that is not strong enough to convey my opinion about his opinion. Go now! Read it immediately! More !!!!!!'s. Ok, get the idea?
Gawwwd, I hate to admit this, but the man is not only incisive but dead-on right.
But, honestly, what does it say that a leading academic finds the mere positing of an empirical theory of a complex problem something that makes her "physically ill"? And to leap immediately from Summers's subtle question to the crudest accusations of sexism is a form of emotional blackmail. It's a sublime example of the left-liberal academy's preference for feeling over argument.Now, Sullivan does say that "Most provocateurs tend toward the dense." I assume that he is referring to Patrick Buchanan, H. Ross Perot, David Duke, among others. I further assume that he is not referring to the provocateur's provocateur, Samuel Clemens. That guy would leave one laughing uproariously while at the same time attempting to remove the scalpel with which Twain had just carved out one's liver.
My point being; Andrew Sullivan is not deserving of your respect nor attention nor time nor thoughts...except when he is. And, this time, he is.