Ace of Spades HQ

April 28, 2005

Nasty Andy: This Isn't Just About Gays...
— Ace

This isn't just about gays, although we've felt the sting of the movement more acutely than most. It's about science, stem cell research, the teaching of evolution, free access to medical prescriptions, the legality of living wills, abortion rights, censorship of cable and network television, and so on. The Schiavo case woke a lot of people up. I was already an insomniac on these issues.

It's not just about gays/gay "marriage"?

Oh, it's about stem cell research, too?

Funny, before Sullivan "evolved" and felt the scales fall from his eyes regarding the perfidity of "theoconservatism" -- coincidentally, over the same period his dream of gay "marriage" was thwarted by a majority of the American public -- he was against stem-cell research on moral grounds:

Consider these analogies. Federal law makes it a crime to kill or injure a bald eagle. It is also a crime to kill or injure a bald eagle's egg. We recognize that to kill one is the same as to kill the other. Similarly, I cannot remember the last time an apple farmer responded to an early frost by saying, "Never mind, we lost the fertilized blossom, but the apples will be fine." Of course, the apples won't be fine. Once the blossom is dead, the apples will never arrive. And once a blastocyst is killed, the human being coiled inexorably inside is no more. If that isn't killing, what is? And why are we more coherent when it comes to eagles than when it comes to humans?
...
Such evil cannot be morally counterbalanced by any good that medical breakthroughs might bring. This is especially true when it's possible to cultivate stem cells from other sources. Perhaps those sources are not as fecund as embryos--but that means we are confronted not by a trade-off between any research into stem cells and preserving human life, but between better, faster stem-cell research and human life. Under those conditions, it's not that close a call. After all, are we currently beset by the problem of scientific breakthroughs that aren't fast enough? Surely the opposite is true (or at least also true): We are beset by scientific breakthroughs that are occurring far faster than we have the moral language or the experience to deal with. Is a slight deceleration in that research too high a price to pay for removing even the chance that we may be taking human life?

It seems Sullivan is reversing a lot of previously-held positions lately... and all since that little decision in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Question for Nasty Andy:

Back when you were against stem-cell research, were you, too, a proponent of "theocracy"? When did you realize theocracy was "bad"?

Thanks to Slublog, who really ought to stop casting these pearls before swine and blog them on his own blog, rather than in my comments.

Give him a hit, anyway. He's got interesting stuff there, too.

Posted by: Ace at 11:04 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 499 words, total size 3 kb.

1 What does HWWNBN stand for? I know it's Sully.

Posted by: Joshua Chamberlain at April 28, 2005 11:22 AM (kVvQ+)

2 He Who Will Not Be Named.

Posted by: ace at April 28, 2005 11:25 AM (Q6+G6)

3 See that's what I can't figure out. He quite clearly was conservative at one point, I mean you don't fake an article like that. Is he essentially faking taking on all liberal talking points now just because he's making an alliance of convenience? Or is he just this famous for changing his mind?

I only started reading him in 2002 and I think (?) by that point he was already opposed to the opposition of stem-cell research, wasn't he?

Posted by: Elric at April 28, 2005 11:27 AM (/HTFA)

4 Can someone explain to me what he means by "Free access to medical perceptions"? Has he gone completely sociali$t? And, no, FTR, I don't read his site, but I thought he retained some of his Conservatism.

(and I can't believe I can't spell out "sociali$t here)

Posted by: carin at April 28, 2005 11:29 AM (YGauZ)

5 I thought it was "He Who Is Not To Be Named"

Anywho, it looks like HWWNBN/HWINTBN is positioning his ass against Christian Conservatives.
Kurtz has an article over at NRO

Because there is no real justification for embryonic stem cell research when adult stem cell research is far more promising (that's why the venture capatilists back it instead of embryonic) and with no ethical baggage, unless you're siding with the "its my body and I'll do what I want when I want at taxpayers expense" crowd.

HWINTBN has finally come to the realization his ass is his identity, and is adjusting his positions to suit.
Well, self knowledge is the first step to enlightenment...

Posted by: Iblis at April 28, 2005 11:35 AM (yKV1Y)

6 Why does he have to be so gay all the time. It's like
he lives in a sort of hyper-gay aware existence and that his gayness must be the most realized aspect of himself. Everything he writes or says is put through a mega gay amplifier. I get it Andrew, YOUR GAY. Next.

Posted by: Michael Branca at April 28, 2005 11:45 AM (Mblay)

7 When I see someone claiming conservatism, who quite publicly supported the most left wing candidate possible; John Kerry

When I see a homosexual calling loudly for homosexual marriage at the expense of all else, and yet still claiming Roman Catholosim;

When I see an ostensive Brit liberal, trying to re-define for his own purposes what it means to be an American Conservative;

When I see such a man in his opening Para claiming that it's American conservatives that are confused;

Well, I gotta tell ya...it'll all I can do to hold my chair for all the laughing. It's like Elmer Fudd claiming Jack Warner had a widdle speech prwobwem.

Sullivan's attempts in this article at self-justification... and that's really what that article is... are about as impressive as Teddy Kennedy complaints about simulated drownings at Abu Griabe.

What amazes me is anyone takes Sullivan seriously, anymore, when he breaks out his label gun.

Posted by: Bithead at April 28, 2005 11:55 AM (TJt6I)

8 Thanks, Ace.

Much appreciated.

I thought of some stuff to write about that, but I was actually quite angry about his change of heart, since I was such a big fan of the original piece.

Posted by: Slublog at April 28, 2005 12:50 PM (eSedf)

9 I don't know if he was or is genuinely conservative or liberal.

I do know HWWNBN has a really lousy memory though.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 28, 2005 12:56 PM (pzen5)

10 It's a pity. I used to agree with him often, and found many of his arguments compelling. But now, his (partly understandable) dislike of Bush has completely clouded his judgement. It's ridiculous.

Memo to Andrew: Stop calling us names. It gets old fast. If I wanted to read nonsense like that, I'd go to moveon.org.

Posted by: SJKevin at April 28, 2005 01:03 PM (Sw8Cn)

11 Free prescriptions is always the mantra of the left. They fail to realize that when drug companies do not make money the research doesn't get funded. They want the govt to fund research and since the government cannot even fucking fund education properly what the hell makes them think they fund medical research properly?

I am absolutely fucking certain after reading what that twat has to say that is taking "Retarded Pills."

Posted by: Jennifer at April 28, 2005 01:50 PM (TFMd3)

12 His interest in abortion rights now also is a bit suspect--

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_06_01_dish_archive.html

Posted by: Ted at April 28, 2005 02:06 PM (fduTN)

13 Jennifer:

Andrew Sullivan used to be a defender of "Big Pharma" against unfair attacks from the left, using logic like your own. Really, he used to have a lot of interesting and reasonable things to say, which makes his current trip all the more puzzling to me. He really should know better.

Posted by: SJKevin at April 28, 2005 02:12 PM (Sw8Cn)

14 The free access to prescriptions thing is made all the more puzzling by his repeated dununciations of how spendthrift the government has become under the Republicans.

Seriously nothing in this blurb of his made any sense at all unless you are to believe this man's blog just sprang forth on the web today.

Posted by: Ted at April 28, 2005 02:22 PM (fduTN)

15 This isn't just about gays...

Yeah, riiiiiight. It's been a very, very long time since HWWNBN has seen anything without looking through the prism of his gay identity. Except maybe beagles and bandwidth costs.

I'd be a lot more impressed with him if he'd just come out (no pun intended) and honestly say he's reverted back into being a liberal, or even just that he's widening his tent to include the views of others with grievances against the current administration.

But, let's be honest...the guy's a hack who thinks with his dick. And while there are plenty of people like that out there--gay and straight--most of them aren't constantly claiming the moral high ground.

Posted by: Sean M. at April 28, 2005 02:45 PM (e0H8j)

16 I recall him defending big pharma on numerous occasions - writing that if it weren't for them and their privately funded research he would have been dead years ago.

I think that this means he finally tossed his last genuinely conservative principle overboard.

Posted by: holdfast at April 28, 2005 03:17 PM (I2n7v)

17 I remember when AS really was conservative - it was after 9/11. Before that, he was a bit eccentric in his politics - he was a great defender of Clinton during the Lewinsky episode and the Ken Starr report that followed, but it seemed to me even then that the seeds of his later destruction were in place. He really supported Clinton because he could never bring himself to denounce sexual libertinism - it would logically mean denying himself a lot of pleasures, and he was still capable of logic back then. He also was showing then that distaste for the company of Christians which is now outright loathing. But it all stems from the same thing - he can't stand people who won't admire his sexual adventures. 9/11 made a big difference, at least temporarily. I think that it, and the Afghan war that followed soon after, pretty much left him "scared straight", if you'll excuse a bad pun. When outside threats were able to punch a hole in his wall of sexual narcissism, he responded in what I consider a rational, manly way - he wanted to get the bastards who'd done this to us, just like any other American. But the threat eventually receded, and he drifted back into his old ways. Now I think he must be feeling pretty safe from Muslim terrorism, so he's given up completely on the allies he supported (and who supported him) in our time of crisis.

Posted by: Wanda at April 28, 2005 03:58 PM (FlAqu)

18 You know who's a funnier insomniac than Sully? Dave Attell.

Man, that bitch crack me the fuck up.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at April 28, 2005 04:08 PM (mrpxK)

19 Wanda,

Well put.

Posted by: addison at April 28, 2005 09:20 PM (u41gP)

20 It's just - when someone starts advocating Free prescription drugs, I know they've flown the coop from rational, to irrational thought. I was just shocked that he was that far gone. I know, I know, I'm naive ... but I don't read his site.

Posted by: carin at April 29, 2005 05:02 AM (hm6Dn)

21 I came across this when Googling "gobsmacking vileness": http://legalxxx.blogspot.com/2005/04/sullivan-gets-gobsmacked.html

It suggests that we start referring to Fiskings of Sullivan as "Gobsmackings"

I like it.

Posted by: AK at April 29, 2005 06:13 AM (OXLjW)

22 I believe by "free access to medical prescriptions" he is expressing his concern over pharmacy workers refusing to fill prescriptions for things like "morning-after pills" and RU-486 beacause said worker doesn't want to provide an abortifacient. AS's concern is obviously that a pharmacy worker will refuse to fill his prescription for AZT because of how he got the affliction that AZT treats.

Posted by: Simon Oliver Lockwood at May 02, 2005 05:41 AM (ypZib)

Hide Comments | Add Comment