Insufficient Outrage
Shorter Andrew Sullivan :
Since the left doesn’t openly express outrage about the same topics that I do, I can only assume that they’re hypocrites who approve of murder.
Along the same lines, just because I haven’t written about this story doesn’t mean I’m not heartbroken over the death of a wonderful woman, nor does it mean that I have any doubt in my mind about the evil of those who are responsible for her murder. Just because people don’t spend their time stating the obvious, doesn’t mean they deny the obvious.
8 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
couldn’t you say the same, in turn, of the conservative bloggers who refuse to cover the Iraqi-civillian death toll? I saw Andrew Sullivan deny the number of dead Iraqi civillians on Bill Maher a couple of weeks ago. It’s received very little coverage from the mainstream news as well. The death toll is estimated to be over 100,000 and counting. Andrew Sullivan outright denies that. So, who’s the hypocrite now? Does Andrew Sullivan aprove of the murder of women and children? Or does one Theo van Gogh life weigh more than thousands of innocent people?
Comment by tom — November 16, 2004 @ 12:28 pm
Is this a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black?
Is it just apparent to me that to conservatives, such as Sullivan, lives of certain Americans are viewed as more valuable than the lives of other Americans. Or that the value of lives of those Americans and allies who support Bush’s war are more than the lives of the uncounted innocents who have met their doom in sandy, Iraqi cities.
Sullivan should really expand his reading list as he might actually learn that many, including that damned liberal media reported on VanGogh’s death. As Sullivan feigns outrage over the death of one man, he nonetheless supports a regime that continues to marginate the poor, manipulates the “religious”, places a huge debt burden on our children, and puts the screws to hundred of thousands of retirees.
His comments show him to be the heartless, butt-scratching, conservative hypocrite that he is.
Comment by Betty — November 16, 2004 @ 1:16 pm
And while we’re at it, I don’t see Sullivan lamenting the thousand-plus American troops we’ve lost fighting a completely unneccessary war. That’s a fine example of a shitty little snipe by someone who doesn’t have a leg to stand on in that department.
Comment by Brianotron — November 16, 2004 @ 2:22 pm
Outrage is a poor tool for grieving.
Outrage will not bring anyone back to life.
Outrage is part of the cycle of destruction, it fans the flames.
Bush has it.
Osama Bin Laden has it.
Guess Andrew Sullivan has it too.
Comment by kamachanda — November 16, 2004 @ 2:32 pm
Sully’s sucking the hookah pipe on that one. An open homosexual who espouses conservative in tolerance calling others hypocritical ?
Comment by Mark Spittle — November 16, 2004 @ 4:34 pm
Too Little, Too Late
Andrew Sullivan is really pushing it: From Roger Ebert. And a good piece on NPR. That’s my summary so far of liberal outrage about the murder of Theo van Gogh. Do you think if a member of the religious right…
Trackback by Bulldog Blue — November 16, 2004 @ 9:30 pm
Doesn’t really add up, does it? It’s like founding a group called “Insects For Orkin.”
Comment by Brianotron — November 17, 2004 @ 9:07 am
Andrew is really parsing out the rope to hang himself with here. The question of emphasis is a legitimate one, but it generally cuts against the right-wing position, at least if you hold values grounded in the Enlightenment. We should pay attention to one death, and therefore we should REALLY pay attention to 100,000 deaths. Which is what the left does, and what the right doesn’t. Except on Abortion. And the number of people who go to hell every yeaar, which I hear is pretty high.
Comment by Red Cross — November 17, 2004 @ 1:49 pm