My Blog

Andrew Sullivan

Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Andrew Sullivan’

scandalousmuffin:

Dan Savage has been doing a video AMA series for The Dish too.

I haven’t read his book, but his podcast is one of my favs. I like listening to crazy sex shit or useful relationship perspectives while I clean the house.

Originally posted on The Dish:

Last week, my old friend Dan Savage and I sat down for an extremely ill-advised public chat about, well, a lot of things. We were at the New York Public Library at a sold-out event, promoting Dan’s typically funny, moving, enraging, provoking, uplifting series of essays, now collected as American Savage. Here’s the full program. Enjoy:

View original

Categories: Social commentary Tags: Andrew Sullivan, Dan Savage, gay, relationships, sex, The Daily Dish

A bunch of legal scholars and securities lawyers have been coming out and saying that Romney hasn’t technically committed a felony crime.  Sure, having a title doesn’t mean you have a legal obligation to a certain level of managerial tasks.  But…

Voters don’t give a shit. They care that Romney was officially CEO and they care that he got $100,000 a year salary from this job position. If he wasn’t paying attention to what was going down in his own company, he’s still up for criticism for neglect.

There’s no way he can back away gracefully from this one.

Categories: Politics or: the art of looking for trouble Tags: Andrew Sullivan, Bain Capital, Mitt Romney, SEC, SEC Bain document

Andrew Sullivan over at The Daily Dish endorses Ron Paul as the GOP primary candidate.  (Keep in mind that this is simply the GOP primary endorsement, not the presidential race endorsement.  Sully, a tempered libertarian, has been vocally more satisfied with Obama’s performance than even most liberals.)

He would never take $1.8 million from Freddie Mac. He would never disown Reagan, as Romney once did. He would never speak of lynching Bernanke, as Perry threatened. When he answers a question, you can see that he is genuinely listening to it and responding – rather than searching, Bachmann-like, for the one-liner to rouse the base. He is, in other words, a decent fellow, and that’s an adjective I don’t use lightly. We need more decency among Republicans.

He ends the post with a bit of a random note, probably in reference to Fox’s less than stellar coverage of Ron Paul as a viable candidate.

Oh, and fuck you, Roger Ailes.

If you’re not familiar with the President of Fox News who is almost too evil to be real, check out the excellent “How Roger Ailes Built the Fox News Fear Factory,” which is essentially everything you need to know about the guy even Rupert Murdoch fears.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: Andrew Sullivan, Robert Ailes, Ron Paul

There are 75,500 Google image results for “sad stockbroker.”

Round up time:

Paul Krugman, of course, is highly critical of the move. He dedicated a post in his blog to a quote from Atrios:

Apparently we’re supposed to care about what some idiots at some corrupt organization think about anything.

Statistics whiz Nate Silver provides us with a comprehensive post with solid statistical evidence that S&P’s previous ratings are pretty worthless and says their “advice has more often than not led investors toward the losing side of bets.”

My favorite libertarian blogger, Andrew Sullivan, thinks the that downgrade makes sense.

A libertarian I like much less, Professor Richard A. Epstein, claims to have “4 Reasons S&P Got it Right,” but mostly rants about spending.

An anonymous author for the WSJ says, “The Obama Administration’s attempt to discredit S&P only makes the U.S. look worse” and it was the “Keynesian and statist revival of the last four years have brought the U.S. to this downgrade.”

Economics of Contempts says, “To say that S&P analysts aren’t the sharpest tools in the drawer is a massive understatement.”

Karl Smith of Modeled Behavior comments, “I think the value of S&P’s action is that it has given both sides ammo where they need it, which seems like it should strengthen our ability to make a deal. Ironically, perhaps the act of issuing this report will help make the conclusions of the report less true. I hope so anyway.”

I hope so too.

I can understand S&P wanting to reclaim their integrity after their terrible track record, but is manufacturing a fear-induced international market crisis really worth that right now? I’m leaning towards no, so I’m still not fully understanding S&P’s motivation here. Especially when they own and maintain the S&P 500 index, which unsurprisingly dropped after their parent agency’s own downgrade.

Categories: Politics or: the art of looking for trouble Tags: AA+, Andrew Sullivan, downgrade, economic opinion, Nate Silver, Paul Krugman, rating, round up, S&P, S&P 500

Perhaps it is the irony of a half-naked man in fairy wings parading the streets of San Francisco claiming he’s just like everyone else. Perhaps, Congress, full of disgruntled men sympathetic to Senator Larry Craig and unable to exercise their public restroom fantasies, exude their anger by passing constitutional amendments barring same-sex couples from marriage. Americans, quite vehemently, are still bickering about what should be done with what President Bush has called “the most fundamental institution of civilization.”

But what exactly do gay people want and why are their opponents so intent on denying it to them? Libertarian journalist and gay-rights proponent, Andrew Sullivan, says he wants the right to marriage, “a lifetime legal commitment between two unrelated, consenting adults to take responsibility for each other (and their children, if any) and to share their lives and home together.” Despite the call for civil rights, marriage has been declared as the “sacred institution” that Bush and his conservative followers so desperately want to “protect” via a constitutional amendment limiting it to a man and a woman. How can a legal institution in a country with a clear division of church and state be sacred? Unless, of course, there are multiple components of marriage—religious, societal, and governmental— and people like the President still have trouble distinguishing them. Once marriage is narrowed to the legal definition with societal implications, one can then better look at the arguments against. However, even after sifting through the name-calling and shaky assertions of societal degradation, there is simply no logical reason why two individuals of the same sex should be denied access to the title of marriage and all encompassing federal and state benefits. Read more…

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: Andrew Sullivan, civil rights, constitutional law, DOMA, gay marriage, same-sex marriage