I suppose it’s because I’m a gay conservative blogger and because Andrew Sullivan is a gay blogger who claims to be conservative that people expect me to blog on his latest indiscretion. I see that my co-blogger has already tapped into the topic.
I do understand that most bloggers who have addressed this have focused on the special treatment Sullivan received. Indeed, by juxtaposing the left-wing blogger’s remark on different standards of justice and the news item on the dismissal of the charges, my co-blogger shows that ex-conservative’s hypocrisy. Others have weighed in in a similar vein; blogger Dan Riehl (and others) points out that a federal “judge believes the dismissal raises equal protection issues.”
I confess that I can’t really get worked up over the issue. Maybe had he been peddling pot to teenagers or toking in front of an old folks’ home might there be an issue, but, well, since I believe marijuana should be decriminalized, I don’t have a problem with an angry blogger carrying around a bag of Mary Jane. Heck, it might even calm this easily excitable blogger.
It’s a freedom issue. Yeah, it does show Sullivan’s hypocrisy, but, well, since I don’t think people should be prosecuted for possessing or smoking weed, it follows that I don’t have a problem if a left-winger gets off for possessing the stuff in the public.
There are many issues for which one can—and should–fault Andrew Sullivan. This isn’t one of them.
It’s not his pot-smoking that’s the problem; it’s his hypocrisy (you know, like calling himself a conservative while talking like a left-winger). Oh, yeah, it’s his excitability too–and his hare-brained notions.
Agreed — let’s not do as Andrew would do and use a trivial non-issue in a hypocritical manner to trash him. How many people (especially those who, say, enjoy reading the Vodkapundit and maybe even imbibing a bit themselves on occasion) can honestly get worked up about this?
We can’t join those out to destroy their ideological opponents instead of engaging their ideas. Pointless personal destruction is Andrew’s job, not ours.
Oh, I can most certainly fault Sullivan for knowingly, intentionally breaking our laws while asking to be made a citizen. And I can certainly fault the courts for giving him preferential treatment.
And on a side note… anyone who supports legalizing marijuana, forget about it if we have socialized medicine! There are all sorts of studies that prove pot has all sorts of adverse health effects — particularly mental health (which, in all seriousness, may go a long way to explaining Sullivan) — and there is no chance in hell Americans are going to legalize a recreational drug just so they can pay for the health effects to an increased number of people.
I would also point out, that people like Andrew Sullivan owe their lives to medical innovation. Right now, America’s free market provides for almost ALL the worlds medical innovation. Socialist countries combined produce, I think, somewhere around 4% of all new drugs and innovation.
I havent seen Sullivan’s take on Obamacare, but have noticed his guest bloggers are ALL for it. I wonder if they realize that Sullivans current drugs will eventually stop working for him. I wonder if they know that new HIV drugs will not come from a country with socialized health care? I wonder if they realize that vaccines and cures are highly unlikely to come from a country with socialized health-care?
There are a whole bunch of ways in which Obamacare is horrible for “the gays”. The supposed constitutional right to privacy upon which sodomy laws were struck down is incompatible with Obamacare, so either the courts will have to strike down the socialized medicine or have an epiphany on privacy rights. And since the latter allows for more judicial activism, the latter is what it will be. You cant have a right to private sodomy (or abortion) when taxpayers are paying for your health care. Etc, etc..
Sorry, I ramble
Also, I would add, Dan, that when we stop enforcing the laws that we disagree with, we cease being a nation of laws.
Of course, when entire cities ignore immigration laws, drug laws, etc, I am beginning to realize that perhaps we ceased being that some time ago.
Dan, one word: H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y.
It’s not “pointless personal destruction” if it’s (1) true, and (2) entirely relevant. (Relevant to the public figure’s own, preening public stances.)
Or as another blogger said it:
since I believe marijuana should be decriminalized, I don’t have a problem with an angry blogger carrying around a bag of Mary Jane.
Even though you may disagree with the law, it’s still there and we should expect folks to adhere to it.
Would you have the same nonchalant attitude if an HIV+ gay man had engaged in barebacking with a teen? Just sayin’ …
Dale, that is an entirely different issue. First, there are two things there, (1) the barebacking; and (2) the issue of statutory rape. I favor laws barring sex with teenagers (18 & under). And I think barebacking is wrong.
“the issue of statutory rape”
WTF? I find it curious that you jumped to that assumption.
“Maybe had he been peddling pot to teenagers …”
So that comment refers to under 16 only? Hello?
[Huh? Trying to see what you’re getting at. You said “engaging in barebacking with a teen.” It is statutory rape to have sex with someone under 18. And I don’t see how the issue of barebacking relates to marijuana use. In the former case, one can harm another, in the latter, only oneself.
In the post, I put in that passage about “peddling pot to teenagers” because if he had done that, it would have been an issue. Just as if he had been having sex (bareback or not) with a teen, it would be a very serious issue, in terms of character and criminality. The barebacking would make it worse, much worse. —Dan]
Anyhoo, the point is that you’d only be a hypocrite for criticizing Sullivan if you yourself pick and choose which laws you follow. Take the agreement element out of it. You may not agree with the law, but you’d still respect it. That’s the bottom line.
New day. Dan, I’m gonna take another crack at this. What disturbs me about your attitude may be illustrated as follows.
Take your headline. Substitute “President Clinton” for Sullivan/blogger; substitute “blow job” for “dime bag”. Your headline them becomes:
Was that your attitude to the Clinton scandal? You must see that it misses the point. Of course getting an adulterous blow job is no *public* offense, only a private one. The point of the Clinton scandal was something more-and-different than that: a public official committing perjury. (And, as 9-11 showed, not attending to his job.)
Likewise here: Of course being a pot user is barely an offense. I think it should be de-criminalized. The point is: Special treatment before the law for FOOs (Friends of Obama). And as I said earlier, hypocrisy because the public figure in question has, articulately and most correctly, condemned people the giving and getting of special treatment.
(continued) Your post is contradictory on these points. In the fine print, you concede that special treatment (vs. equal protection) and hypocrisy are legitimate issues. But your headline is dismissive, and the overall thrust (or tone or spin) of your post is dismissive.
In conclusion – Sorry if I am over-working this. I agree it’s minor in the scheme of things and I will forget about it after today. My problem is that something about your headline and attitude just feel bad to me. “Yawn, Left-Wing Blogger Caught with Dime Bag” – how would the underlying attitude there be different from those who in the past have said, “Yawn, Left-Wing President Caught Getting Blow Job”? Different circumstances (e.g., President vs. pundit/blogger), but same attitude.
Maybe it’s the moral nihilism in the attitude, that bothers me. Sorry to keep re-explaining; I’m trying to put my finger on it (and probably failing).
Gonna go against the grain here: I don’t think legalizing drugs is a good idea unless society is centered on the concept of personal responsibility. Only in such a society can the damage of drugs be limited to the individual consumer. You ought not be eligible for any form of public assistance if you use drugs. Your employer should be able to fire you for using drugs. Custody cases should be decided in favor of the parent who does not use drugs.
You can’t have that in a society like ours where one individual’s license to engage in self-gratification trumps the rights of others to health, safety, economic self-determinism, and to follow a personal moral code.
Dan, I’m not sure about the hypocrisy angle here. It doesn’t appear that Sullivan got any better treatment than any other person who got caught with a doobie for the first time. As far as I know, Sullivan hasn’t advocated for jail time for first time (or any time) offenders. There are apparently other examples of hypocricy on Sullivan’s part. I’m not sure this is one of them. Perhaps an example of stupidity on Sullivan’s part.
Better examples of hypocrisy for similar situations would be Eliot Spitzer and David Vitter. Spitzer more so, because he prosecuted persons involved in prostitution rings.
Like you and ILC, I favor decriminalization of marijuana. Sure there are adverse affects to marijuana, but they don’t appear to cause nearly as many adverse health effects that alcohol and tobacco use cause.
ILC, the difference between the two headlines is more than just the persons involved. In Clinton’s case it was much more than a bl*w job and any hypocrisy. As you stated, it was the perjury that he was impeached for, not for having an extramarital affair. On the other hand, you and Dan are in agreement about the equal treatment and hypocrisy angle here.
Patrick J. Sime
The judge (Collings) stated explicitly that the treatment he was being asked to give Sullivan was much more lenient than the treatment he planned to hand out to several other offenders in his court the same day. Read the judge’s statement here, it’s only a few pages:
http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=collings/pdf/09-0476rbcsullivan.pdf
Conceded.
ILC, you’ve shown how to disagree with my points with class and in a civil manner. Fair points all. Our liberal critics should take note.
And add this wrinkle as well–Ronald Radosh wonders if the Obama Administration is buying Pat says
ILC, I had a longer comment, but lost it. I don’t think it even made it to the spam filter. So I’ll just give a brief recap. I read the argument, but will admit my legalese is horrible, and don’t even understand what the judge ultimately ruled.
In any case, it does appear where perhaps Sullivan did get a break is having a U.S. Attorney advocate for him. It’s not clear whether this U.S. Attorney would advocate for someone else who was in a similar immigration status. If not, and there is no other mitigating factors, then Sullivan was unfairly given a break. And in that case, Sullivan should have urged the U.S. Attorney to not argue on his behalf.
Pat, I read it and understood it. Will you accept my interpretation?
– The U.S. Attorney said, don’t prosecute Sullivan.
– The Court said, why the hell not? By “prosecute”, we’re talking about a formality that ends with the defendant paying a $125 fine, less than a traffic ticket. I plan to do it to several other people today.
– The USA said, it would adversely affect Sullivan’s immigration application.
– The Court said, how? If he’s being honest on his application, he has to admit now anyway that he has been charged with a U.S. crime. How would going ahead with the prosecution worsen that? I’m open to your reasoning, just tell me.
– The USA said, I don’t know. But it’s my decision whether we’ll prosecute him and you don’t get to ask questions.
– The Court said, the hell I don’t. But fine, I’m the judge not the prosecutor and there is no point in me going ahead without a prosecutor on board. I guess I should give in and do as you ask. But it IS exceptional treatment and doesn’t that go against everything we are supposed to believe in?
Given Sullivan’s public moral stand on special treatment which Bruce quoted in his thread – Yes, agreed.
Ronald Radosh wonders if the Obama Administration is buying “Doc” Sullian’s support.
They don’t have to. RawMuslGlutes is smitten with Chairman Zero and would have his caramel colored baby if he could. (Which is partly the source of his obsession with Sarah Palin’s uterus.)
I want to know if the White House AGAIN politicized the judicial process. Would a FOIA request be able to discern if someone in the White House spoke to the US Attorney on Sullivan’s behalf?
It was probably done with a phone call… no trail.
I thought the White House was required to keep records of all phone calls.
Thanks, ILC. That’s kind of what I thought, but it just seemed bizarre to me that a judge’s ruling would go like that, hence my lack of understanding. My guess is that Sullivan thought that by having the charges dropped (and having the U.S. Attorney agree to it), that he would not have to admit to being charged with a crime on any immigration application, even though the judge believed otherwise. Perhaps that’s why the U.S. Attorney had no answer, or refused to answer, the judge’s questions. Under the circumstances, I understand the judge’s conclusion that the U.S. Attorney was giving Sullivan special treatment.