Savage Sullivan
August 8, 2005 5:10 PM Subscribe
From the things you never thought you would see happen category: Dan Savage of Savage Love fame guest is guest editing conservative Andrew Sullivan's political blog.
why??? are they friends? (and ewww)
and except for the pro-discrimination thing about British Muslims (again, eww, especially since many would throw Savage out of here given the opportunity), he's avoiding Sullivan's usual topics, no?
posted by amberglow at 5:31 PM on August 8, 2005
and except for the pro-discrimination thing about British Muslims (again, eww, especially since many would throw Savage out of here given the opportunity), he's avoiding Sullivan's usual topics, no?
posted by amberglow at 5:31 PM on August 8, 2005
"I believe I was—correct me if I'm wrong—the only professional sex advice columnist in the United States, if not the world, to come out in favor of the invasion of Iraq. I have some thoughts on the current state of things over there (and the through-the-looking glass moment when I realized I was to the right of Ann “Batshitcrazy” Coulter on this issue), and I intend to share them... just not this minute."
That's why, I guess.
posted by loquax at 6:05 PM on August 8, 2005
That's why, I guess.
posted by loquax at 6:05 PM on August 8, 2005
even Sullivan realized he was wrong about Iraq--Savage hasn't?
posted by amberglow at 7:03 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by amberglow at 7:03 PM on August 8, 2005
The "conservative" label doesn't really fit Sullivan very well, he is pro-choice, pro-immigration and pro gay marriage. And voted for Kerry!
posted by LarryC at 7:16 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by LarryC at 7:16 PM on August 8, 2005
Amberglow: Savage has realized he was wrong. A couple years back he wrote about it in the strangers' "we're sorry" issue, which I, unfortunately, cannot find now.
posted by piratebowling at 7:35 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by piratebowling at 7:35 PM on August 8, 2005
I've met Dan a few times over the years and despite the press, he's a really good person who's heart (and politics) are in the right place.
posted by mk1gti at 9:39 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by mk1gti at 9:39 PM on August 8, 2005
yeah, but lets be honest, he is probably the most politically small-c conservative out there. he relies on his [extremely-progressive, no doubt) views on sexuality and the like to foil for his somewhat more conversative economic views. see bill cosby on this. i've not met the guy or anything, so yes, one can discount this opinion, but gleaning from his columns these last 10 years, i have always had a nagging suspicion that, despite his heart "being in the right place," he had some views that perhaps weren't the most progressive, at least w/r/t notions of "personal responsibility" that often echoed those of the [more] conservative libertarions. in that vein, it makes sense that he is collaborating with andrew sullivan -- a social liberal that has frequently been on the wrong side of the economic battle.
posted by yonation at 9:54 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by yonation at 9:54 PM on August 8, 2005
Dan Savage is a great guy and Andrew Sullivan is a small, nasty little man who glorifies HIV infection. Savage should be fucking ashamed to associate with him.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:15 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:15 PM on August 8, 2005
Dan Savage is a great guy and Andrew Sullivan is a small, nasty little man who glorifies HIV infection. Savage should be fucking ashamed to associate with him.
Yeah, I don't get that incongruity, either. Why would Dan be good friends with someone as irresponsible as Babreback Andy?
posted by Rothko at 1:05 AM on August 9, 2005
Yeah, I don't get that incongruity, either. Why would Dan be good friends with someone as irresponsible as Babreback Andy?
posted by Rothko at 1:05 AM on August 9, 2005
Dan Savage is a great guy and Andrew Sullivan is a small, nasty little man who glorifies HIV infection.
I'm not very familiar with Andrew Sullivan, but I didn't see anything in that article that "glorifies" HIV infection. I think the point was that HIV treatment has been vastly improved and transmission rates are going down (are they?) and that despite this, AIDS has a huge stigma that can cause HIV+ people to be treated badly. He wasn't advocating spreading the disease, so I'm not sure what's offensive admitting that he's living a pretty healthy life despite his diagnosis. Maybe he's been a "small, nasty little man" in some other article?
posted by heatherann at 6:28 PM on August 9, 2005
I'm not very familiar with Andrew Sullivan, but I didn't see anything in that article that "glorifies" HIV infection. I think the point was that HIV treatment has been vastly improved and transmission rates are going down (are they?) and that despite this, AIDS has a huge stigma that can cause HIV+ people to be treated badly. He wasn't advocating spreading the disease, so I'm not sure what's offensive admitting that he's living a pretty healthy life despite his diagnosis. Maybe he's been a "small, nasty little man" in some other article?
posted by heatherann at 6:28 PM on August 9, 2005
« Older Yeah, can I get a venti late with an extra shot of... | Choosy mothers choose Plumpy'nut Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by phatboy at 5:11 PM on August 8, 2005