Tuesday, December 8, 2009

I Have Questions About Andrew Sullivan...

Andrew Sullivan has come to the Athenaeum twice in the last four years, so I'm blogging about this because it seems fair to assume that he'll be there again as he's a safe choice for the ideological Ath. He's a self-described ex-conservative, so the Ath gets the points for bringing a supposed conservative at the same time that that "conservative" trashes on the ideological movement of which he's supposedly apart.

For someone who wants to ask a lot of questions about Sarah Palin and the birth of her baby, Trig, people should definitely be asking some serious questions about Andrew Sullivan. Don't mistake me here, as I'm not a fan of Sarah Palin and think that there is some stuff to look up there.

I have no problem with people using internet sites to ask for dates, but soliciting gay, unprotected sex when you are HIV positive strikes me as disturbed to say the least. He favors letting HIV positive individuals come to our country and his conduct shows that he's not in the least concerned if the disease spreads.

His statement about fact checking is odd, too. There were eleven reporters at the AP that read it and fact checked it. They put zero reporters fact checking the books of Barack Obama.


Anonymous said...

Would it have been less disturbing if it were straight, unprotected sex when he was HIV positive? Seems like an implicit crack against gay people.

You on Palin:

"I freely confess to the political equivalent of falling in love with Sarah Palin, the current (and hottest) VP pick of any party ever, and so I'm at the point where I'm justifying writing about her over and over again. Alas, here's some more for Palinmania.

We've already covered Professor Pitney's prescient Palin pick..."

"Of course those aren't the reasons I've [sic] enthused with her. Unlike the polar bears that grace her state, Palin is one of the last limited government conservatives in this country. She sold the old Alaska governor's plane on eBay.

I'm coming around to liking Palin quite a bit."

Flip-flopper ;)

Charles Johnson said...

If you haven't read any of my stuff in the last six months on her, I've been pretty critical, but not foaming at the mouth as some.

I'm pretty much against anyone who has HIV having sex or being in any position to spread the disease. Thanks for letting me clarify.

Anonymous said...

You have never expressed that you regret your earlier 'love' for palin.

Lowell said...

First, saying that HIV+ people should not be allowed to have sex is pretty hateful and discriminatory speech. Not much to elaborate on there...

Second, say what you want about Sullivan looking for unprotected sex, but when it comes down to it, he wasn't lying about his status. Anyone meeting him for sex was aware of his status and knew the risk associated with having unprotected sex with someone who is HIV+.

And finally, in order to really understand that article in The Nation, you need to have some background in queer theory. The essay is so packed with references to themes in queer studies to the extent that it seems like an essay that could be read in a queer studies class. So I don't know how possible it is to pick and choose elements of it without providing the theoretical context in which Kim places Sullivan.


BTW, I don't even know who Andrew Sullivan is, so don't interpret my post as defending him, these are just broad issues I'm defending in general.

Anonymous said...

hahahaha queer theory?

Anonymous said...

I understand your HIV+ point about immigration, and while I disagree with it, there is at least some reasonableness to it.

But saying that HIV+ people should not be allowed to have protected sex with HIV- people is just going way too far.

Sex is an integral aspect of humanity, and as any lover of liberty will tell you, people should have the choice to engage in sex with these people. Denying this freedom to HIV- individuals and denying the ability for HIV+ people to sex with HIV- people is inane.

What if a husband or wife contracts the virus. Should they not be allowed to even have safe sex with their partner, assuming they consent?

Anonymous said...

Your stupidity is mind-bending.

It's hard to believe you can actually post statements like this while supposedly getting an education. Really sad state of affairs and certainly a terrible advertisement for CMC.

Charles Johnson said...

If by concerned about the public health, I admit my guilt. As for stupidity, I must take umbrage. My IQ is 143 and I have the documentation to prove it. If I should appear not bright it is because I rarely live up to the potential I have, but then again few do.

Art Tellem said...

Please scan and post that documentation. You claim that IQ score more often than Obama claims to be born in Hawai'i. Until I see it, I won't believe it. And if it is from the "doctor" who found your "gluten allergy" that doesn't count.

Charles Johnson said...

Tell you what, Art. You come forward and ask me for it and I'll hand it to you myself.

As for my doctor, allow me to say that I indeed do have a gluten allergy and it is rather debilitating, although certainly not on the level of a friend at CMC. (I'm quite gaseous as a result of whenever I eat gluten.)

You should know, though, that doctors don't administer IQ tests.

Anonymous said...

no, random internet sites give IQ tests.


Yes, doctors do administer IQ tests. They are the only people qualified to give and interpret them. Real tests are given by psychologists: people with PsyDs or PhDs

Anonymous said...

smart people also have humility. They dont need to prove every time that they are doubted to be so, that they are smart through their IQ scores.

More fundamentally, if someone has to keep talking about their IQ score, it seems like not too many people have been convinced.