Huffpost Homepage
The Blog

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors

Larisa Alexandrovna Headshot

Andrew Sully and Moore Disorder

Posted: Updated:

I know Andrew Sullivan just simply cannot help his obsession with Michelle Malkin. After all, there are few inflatable puppets who can manage to be horizontal and sit on their master’s lap at the same time. Malkin, by the way, is the inflated puppet in this scenario, although Andy can fill in when Malkin is unavailable.

Now it seems that little Andy has developed a Moore disorder not unlike the one that Bill O’Reilly has, and very similar also to the one unleashed by the right wing as a cure to logic and reason.

The symptoms of a Moore disorder are quite visible and can be used to easily identify shills (Coulter) and hookers (Gannon): ascribe a negative meaning to words that in and of themselves have no negative connotation, (Liberal); use distorted meanings of words that can have both a negative and positive connotation or simply misrepresent them completely (Communism), create an adjective of derision from the name of a person who holds an opposing view, and use it as an insult (Howard Dean); and lie over and over until the lie becomes believable no matter how far fetched or improbable (WMD, Freedom is on the March, etc.)

Are they all sharing Bush’s brain, or are they all sipping from the same trough? Consider that not a single one of the Luntz-o-matic verbiage generators has yet to adequately apply their Moore/Dean insult in any logical or factual way.

Andy Hearts Larisa

Case in point, Andy’s latest ode to bullshit includes an honorable mention to me.

MOORE AWARD RUNNER UP 2005: "So while children are drowning and others are floating around, dead in the water, the wannabe Yale cowboy struts around the set of his faux town hall meetings, has a bit of cake with John McCain, and takes in some fresh air in Colorado.

Congress? Anyone?

Dick? Where is Dick? Anyone?

Condi? Rummy? Any other Iran-Contra Folks?

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

Hello?

So where does that leave us, the citizens of this raped, pillaged, terrorized, demoralized, freedom loving nation?

Floating face down, eyes affixed on a once great New Orleans!" - Larisa Alexandrovna, on HuffPuff.

Huffington Post readers will remember the absolute outrage this nation felt when we watched the poor of New Orleans (clutching babies) starving, crying, and dying on TV. My reaction to that horror was angry, yes, it was aggressive, yes, but it was honest and it was human. I make no apologies for my outrage.

Andy’s reaction, on the other hand, was that of the entire far right. Instead of expressing his outrage at the devastation and neglect, he attacked those genuinely mortified by what they saw.

That aside, what is a Moore award exactly and how does one get such an honor?

Andy tells us:

MOORE AWARD WINNERS 2005: This is, like the Malkin, a new award that succeeds an old one. I used to call these awards Sontag Awards, for moral equivalence in the war on terror. But Sontag died, and it's no fun to ridicule a dead person. Michael Moore, however, is very much alive, and his combination of spirited mendacity and loathing of Western freedom (except when it makes him a zillionaire), is as popular as ever. The award goes to those who best represent anti-Americanism, equation of the West with terrorists, fanatical Bush-hatred, and rhetoric that makes even Huffington Post readers raise their eyebrows.

So this is the old Susan Sontag award. Okay, sounds good to me as I have always respected Ms. Sontag.

And it seems to be given out for “moral equivalence in the war on terror” – whatever the hell that means. Perhaps Andy will enlighten us when next he finds a thesaurus.

The award, according to Andy, is named after Moore because of his “spirited mendacity” – no argument here - and because of his “loathing of Western freedom.”

Huh?

Where did Michael Moore say that he hates western freedom? I am sure Andy will follow up and provide the proper sourcing later (like O’Reilly does). But how does my rant about a corrupt administration in any way describe me as hating Western freedoms?

Could it be my other writing on the importance of the Constitution and on the importance of freedom that sparked this curious attention? Or is it my definition of what it means to be an American and the hopes of an America – free and unfettered – that has granted me this honor?

Maybe Andy is referring to my childhood in the Soviet Union, my rants against the Soviet Union, and my family’s brave journey to the free west?

Just what exactly makes me anti-American, Andy?

But finally, we get to the ugly of it -- what the award is really about: “Anti-Americanism, equation of the West with terrorists, and fanatical Bush-hatred.”

On Anti-Americanism: apparently my writing about my love of America makes me anti-American; moreover, my staunch defense of Americans and the Constitution also makes me anti-American. More importantly, my Constitutional right to question my government also makes me anti-American. Hardly!

Even if I were wearing a Nazi uniform, running up and down the street screaming I hate liberty, while carrying a sign supporting Satan for Congress, I would still be an American under the Constitution of the United States and the freedoms that it allows.

I mean really, even a gay man who making his living pandering to homophobes should be able to see just how flaccid his argument is. But then again, a gay man hating gays is the new party platform for the right.

On Equating the West with Terrorists: while I have yet to equate the West with terrorists in any comparative way, to think that the term “terrorism” only applies to Muslims (which is the only inference one can make given the feeble presentation Andy makes) is not only inaccurate, it is simply racist.

When a far right faux Christian bombs a building they are committing an act of terror, are they not? But this discussion and examination of Western terrorists vs. Muslim terrorists is far too complex and extensive to have in a blog.

Suffice it to say, my honest anger for the victims of Katrina used the term terror in its appropriate definition. Would you not feel terrorized if you were left behind to die without food or water, worse still, locked in a city unable to leave, deprived of emergency supplies? What would your fear look like when the outrageously delayed response, was not one of humanitarian need, but rather a military operation?

The West does not own the term terror, nor does this administration. The term existed long before Bush took office and has been applied to terrorists in the West, including the IRA.

Thanks for the straw man, Andy.

On Fanatical Bush Hatred: I am hardly a fanatical anything. When met with logic, the far right uses terms like fanatic to dismiss reality, so Andy’s latest should come as no surprise.

I do not (1) fanatically hate in general, or (2) anyone in particular, (3) including George Bush.

Rather, I am angry at this administration and I have a right to that anger even if Andy does not happen to agree with it in his misguided, wannabe attempt at playing Christopher Hitchens, (misguided squared).

I respect the office of the Presidency, but I do not respect the current President because he does not respect his office or oath thereof. As an American, I have the right to dislike, even fanatically hate (if that were the case) the President. That, I believe, is called “western freedom” and I love it. But according to Andy, that would make me anti-American.

So it seems my award, while initially citing Susan Sontag and then Michael Moore, has nothing to do with either. It is simply nothing more than a smear using standard right wing talking points:

-Anti-American
-Anti-Patriotic
-Anti-West
-Anti-Freedom

The man who gave me this “Moore award,” Andy, seems to have a serious case of Moore disorder: he cannot address the actual facts of my arguments in any meaningful way; he cannot allow for my honest outrage or find it easy to express his own; he can only define me by applying slogans that have no real value, and he actually thinks that I would stand for his for this crap.

On all counts, Andy is quite wrong.