Thursday, January 19, 2006

The Sully Love is Spreading

Something has changed. I don't know what it is. I used to read Andrew Sullivan as fuel for my "god, conservatives are so stupid and unreasonable" fire. Hence the "Ugh, Andrew Sullivan" there on the right--a little admission that I read him but am embarrassed to be caught doing it. But, then Lindsey points out, "Andrew Sullivan was on The Colbert Report tonight and I thought he was utterly charming and cordial and downright jolly about things." And she's right. He is utterly charming*. Is this new? And today, Sully's** all hopeful about a vibrant American culture. Kids, I can dig that--celebrating a vibrant American culture. He's talking about a change in our cultural sense of humor: "The writers and actors trusted the audience to be in on the joke, and to realize that the fun they were poking was sharp but not designed to wound." First the cat and the dog get along. Now I'm agreeing with Andrew Sullivan. Will wonders never cease? Anyway, I like the shit out of this idea of "sharp but not designed to wound" and I'm going to mull it over. *Lindsey, did Fritz ever give you an answer to your question? I've been going back and forth between this and this and I just don't know enough about gay male culture to say yes or no. **Can I call him Sully? I want to. Can one have pet names for men she's never met? He can call me something sweet and diminutive if he wants. I won't mind.


Blogger the Professor said...

As you surely know by now, I am prone to outrageous utopic visions. Maybe that's why I can spot others' so easily. Does Sully really think that everyone is in on the jokes? Didn't he hear that Chappelle went off the deep end partially because he knew that white racists were using his jokes as cannon fodder? I too like the "sharp but not designed to wound," but that doesn't mean that it doesn't sometimes wound, even the one wielding the weapon. If only we really were only responsible for our intentions.

1/19/2006 02:37:00 PM  
Blogger theogeo said...

You know, I guess he might be more of a subset of Bear, like a metrosexual kind of Bear more in tune with fashion and pop culture and politics. I really have no idea, and it's obvious I'm talking about stuff about which I'm totally clueless, so I'll just stop while I'm ahead. Sort of.

Alls I know is that I LOVE their flag.

And, yes, it does feel entirely strange to feel more of an intellectual kinship with Andrew Sullivan than, say, the majority of elected Democrats.

1/19/2006 03:29:00 PM  
Blogger Kat Coble said...

I don't think Sullivan is a bear, technically. He didn't identify as such in his personal ad, and the "No fats and fems" kinda lets out the Bear part. (Fats that is. Fems....not so much)

Bears definitely identify as such---at least the ones I keep company with.

As for Sullivan being conservative...he's been bending the metal on that for awhile now. I think he's more iconoclastic, as he's inched around various issues from both angles of approach. Frankly, I think his "gay conservative" was just his hook to sell his stuff. He's kind of lost me with the constant flogging of gay marriage in every context. The man could do a restaurant review and turn it into a screed on gay marriage. Too one-note for my taste.

1/19/2006 04:04:00 PM  
Blogger Kat Coble said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1/19/2006 04:04:00 PM  
Blogger Kat Coble said...

identify as such

1/19/2006 04:05:00 PM  
Blogger Lee said...

Read that article Katherine, but I couldn't get past the point where the author at The Nation referred to The New Republic as 'reactionary.'

While I understand many liberals are upset at Peter Beinhart right now, still... 'reactionary?'

That's like The Weekly Standard calling the guys at National Review, 'pinkos.'

Maybe the cliche' is true that liberals are looking for heretics while conservatives are looking for converts.

1/19/2006 05:12:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home