Friday, November 07, 2003
shorter tnr
The TNR Primary
despite the fact we are a "liberal" publication, we nonetheless find every single one of the major democratic presidential candidates so personally unappealing that the weighted average of all their General Likeability scores for the past six-months is an utterly average 2.0. oh, and we really hate howard dean.
candidate: total points earned (total entries), six-month average
clark: 21.3 (11), 1.9
dean: 43.2 (28), 1.5
edwards: 18.1 (8), 2.3
gephardt 20.1 (7), 2.9
graham 15.1 (7), 2.2
kerry 56 (24), 2.3
lieberman 4 (2) 2.0
totals 177.8 (87), 2.0
The TNR Primary
despite the fact we are a "liberal" publication, we nonetheless find every single one of the major democratic presidential candidates so personally unappealing that the weighted average of all their General Likeability scores for the past six-months is an utterly average 2.0. oh, and we really hate howard dean.
candidate: total points earned (total entries), six-month average
clark: 21.3 (11), 1.9
dean: 43.2 (28), 1.5
edwards: 18.1 (8), 2.3
gephardt 20.1 (7), 2.9
graham 15.1 (7), 2.2
kerry 56 (24), 2.3
lieberman 4 (2) 2.0
totals 177.8 (87), 2.0
mmmmmm, testosterone...
i spend a lot of time attacking andrew sullivan and i'm not really sure why. to be honest, i actually like some of his longer magazine pieces (you know, the ones that an editor has to look at to ensure that the piece is intellectually consistent, well argued, and devoid of too many instances of glaring hypocrisy and paranoid hysteria). but when it comes to his blog, i have to make fun, because it's just too easy.
take, for example, this post in which he defends himself against eric alterman's assertion that andy is a "wannabe ayatollah"--at least in terms of his exuberance in denouncing as an unpatriotic america-hater anyone who disagrees with his (i.e. the bush admin's) positions.
If you've read this blog for a while, you'll know I don't pull a lot of punches in exposing what I think is dumb or malign or just wrong out there in the media and politics. If such criticism means I'm an ayatollah, then I guess Alterman is entitled to his opinion. But I'm a First Amendment absolutist, an opponent of all attempts to control people's thoughts and ideas, a long opponent of religious fundamentalism of all kinds, an anti-theocrat, a supporter of the war against Islamist terror, and a strong proponent of gay rights.
Now this post was written at 12:51:02 AM (at least that's what it says on his blog. but go over to sullywatch if you want an explanation of how these time stamps are often incorrect) and i can just imagine the situation. the boyfriend went to bed hours ago; the beagle's snoozing on the couch; andy's just rubbed a whole tube of andro on his newly naired chest, and he's starting to feel a little giddy. Which explains why, a scant three minutes later, he writes this post, in which he applauds as a "new media triumph...CBS's welcome decision to punt on its anti-Reagan biopic" (tbogg has some choice words about andy's love of the "new media meme"; emphasis in quote mine). now, i never went to no harvard, but i got me a good sniffer, and i know when i smell the putrid stench of hypocrisy. in fact, it smells like horseshit, and let me tell you, right now i think a herd of incontinent clydesdales just galloped by:
[The biopic] was so egregiously designed to attack a beloved president in his waning years, so riddled with obvious lies and distortions, so hateful in its intent, that I doubt any major network would have gotten away with it in any time.
"designed to attack?" perhaps. "riddled with obvious lies and distortions?" maybe. "hateful in its intent?" possibly. "beloved president?" debatable. at any rate, the point is, andy, even if this despcription of the movie is 100% correct, remember, you're a self-styled "FIRST AMENDMENT ABSOLUTIST" which means you should be outraged--OUTRAGED--to learn that a small interest group pressured a media outlet into spiking programming simply because said programming disagreed with said focus group's agenda.
in fact, what i think you meant to say is that you are a first amendment relativist and that you are a staunch defender of every american's right to free speech provided they don't say anything that runs contrary to the opinions expressed by (including but not limited to): the reagan and bush administrations; the rnc; fox news channel; charles krauthammer; the wall street journal editorial page; or any other of your sacrosanct heroes, the fond memories of which must be preserved for all eternity and must not be besmirched by any castro-loving, terrorist-adoring, islamofascist-supporting, america-hating, left-leaning media mogul like les moonves, who--as the head of a multi-billion dollar media corporation--has an obvious stake in perpetuating the current system but nevertheless harbors a deep-seated wish to turn the united states into stalinist russia, if he only had the chance.
i spend a lot of time attacking andrew sullivan and i'm not really sure why. to be honest, i actually like some of his longer magazine pieces (you know, the ones that an editor has to look at to ensure that the piece is intellectually consistent, well argued, and devoid of too many instances of glaring hypocrisy and paranoid hysteria). but when it comes to his blog, i have to make fun, because it's just too easy.
take, for example, this post in which he defends himself against eric alterman's assertion that andy is a "wannabe ayatollah"--at least in terms of his exuberance in denouncing as an unpatriotic america-hater anyone who disagrees with his (i.e. the bush admin's) positions.
If you've read this blog for a while, you'll know I don't pull a lot of punches in exposing what I think is dumb or malign or just wrong out there in the media and politics. If such criticism means I'm an ayatollah, then I guess Alterman is entitled to his opinion. But I'm a First Amendment absolutist, an opponent of all attempts to control people's thoughts and ideas, a long opponent of religious fundamentalism of all kinds, an anti-theocrat, a supporter of the war against Islamist terror, and a strong proponent of gay rights.
Now this post was written at 12:51:02 AM (at least that's what it says on his blog. but go over to sullywatch if you want an explanation of how these time stamps are often incorrect) and i can just imagine the situation. the boyfriend went to bed hours ago; the beagle's snoozing on the couch; andy's just rubbed a whole tube of andro on his newly naired chest, and he's starting to feel a little giddy. Which explains why, a scant three minutes later, he writes this post, in which he applauds as a "new media triumph...CBS's welcome decision to punt on its anti-Reagan biopic" (tbogg has some choice words about andy's love of the "new media meme"; emphasis in quote mine). now, i never went to no harvard, but i got me a good sniffer, and i know when i smell the putrid stench of hypocrisy. in fact, it smells like horseshit, and let me tell you, right now i think a herd of incontinent clydesdales just galloped by:
[The biopic] was so egregiously designed to attack a beloved president in his waning years, so riddled with obvious lies and distortions, so hateful in its intent, that I doubt any major network would have gotten away with it in any time.
"designed to attack?" perhaps. "riddled with obvious lies and distortions?" maybe. "hateful in its intent?" possibly. "beloved president?" debatable. at any rate, the point is, andy, even if this despcription of the movie is 100% correct, remember, you're a self-styled "FIRST AMENDMENT ABSOLUTIST" which means you should be outraged--OUTRAGED--to learn that a small interest group pressured a media outlet into spiking programming simply because said programming disagreed with said focus group's agenda.
in fact, what i think you meant to say is that you are a first amendment relativist and that you are a staunch defender of every american's right to free speech provided they don't say anything that runs contrary to the opinions expressed by (including but not limited to): the reagan and bush administrations; the rnc; fox news channel; charles krauthammer; the wall street journal editorial page; or any other of your sacrosanct heroes, the fond memories of which must be preserved for all eternity and must not be besmirched by any castro-loving, terrorist-adoring, islamofascist-supporting, america-hating, left-leaning media mogul like les moonves, who--as the head of a multi-billion dollar media corporation--has an obvious stake in perpetuating the current system but nevertheless harbors a deep-seated wish to turn the united states into stalinist russia, if he only had the chance.
