Criminals among us

Erik Kain

Erik writes about video games at Forbes and politics at Mother Jones. He's the contributor of The League though he hasn't written much here lately. He can be found occasionally composing 140 character cultural analysis on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

12 Responses

  1. Jaybird says:

    It’s like reading an article from 1931 talking about a guy caught with a case of beer.Report

  2. Nice dig on that little nugget. I wonder, has Andrew addressed it publicly?Report

      • One wonders if he will and if so what he might be inclined to say. Not that I wish ill of Andrew, but for someone who has been as ruthless re: Palin as he has, you would think he’d feel intellectually compelled to tackle this head on.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Scott H. Payne says:

          Imagine the cops (or a judge) saying “we’ll let you off easy, because of who you are, but you aren’t allowed to talk about how we let you off easy”.

          Additionally, imagine that you want to go back there sometime and eat at that lovely little cafe that looks out over the water. Because, of course, you have the munchies.

          You gonna say anything on your blog?Report

          • Scott H. Payne in reply to Jaybird says:

            Probably not. But then, one might be inclined to notice the apparent double standard that is being applied in re: to the actions of one public figure vs. another.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Scott H. Payne says:

              Eh. This is where the perspective he brings also gets him into trouble.

              Sarah Palin is intrinsically bad. Sure, a lot of people may like her, but they are either bad people or deceived by her. Given the amount of damage that she would do the country, a little exuberance in fighting her is, ahem, no vice.

              Andrew, by contrast, is good for the country. A little moderation when it comes to focusing on his own foibles to be expected. It was only a little weed, after all. It’s not like he was hurting anybody. Having the authorities refrain from coming down on him like a sack of hammers will result in him being allowed to continue to do more good… and if the price is that he isn’t allowed to talk about the hammers that didn’t come down… well, that will give him more time to fight against the real problems that are actually doing harm to this country.

              People who we know are bad don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.
              People who we know are good absolutely do.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

                According to some theories of how it ought to work, anyway.

                I’d ask for the laws to be repealed yesterday and think that they ought not be applied against *ANYBODY* at all… but the idea that the laws only apply to these folks but not those folks is one that gives me hives.Report

              • Scott H. Payne in reply to Jaybird says:

                Yeah, I mean it’s hard to get very worked up when yr opposed to the law he broke in the first place. I think it would be intellectually consistent for Andrew to address this publicly, but that he won’t isn’t a: surprising, b: very damaging in the long run.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Scott H. Payne says:

      He had a post titled “The Hierarchy vs Civil Equality”…

      But it was about gay marriage.Report

  3. Ryan says:

    It certainly explains all his pro-pot blogging of recent vintage, doesn’t it?Report

  4. Roque Nuevo says:

    It’s no “apparent” double standard. It’s quite evident. And it’s not because Sullivan is a public intellectual. It’s because Sullivan is a public intellectual who has shamelessly shilled for Obama. If he’s caught with pot, there goes his citizenship application…

    I hope Jaybird is being facitious. Sullivan, good for the country!? Don’t make me laugh! For his own good, I hope he doesnt’ believe this hogwash.Report