|
|
|
August 22, 2007
Confabulation of fabulism?
"The more ambitious fabulist is not Scott Beauchamp, however. It's Victor Davis Hanson." By saying that, Andrew Sullivan is either exercising demagoguery, or else he has lost sight of a rather basic distinction. Facts are not the same thing as opinions. Sullivan calls Victor Davis Hanson a "fabulist" and argues that he was more dishonest and less accurate than Scott Beauchamp. But attacking Hanson's 2004 opinions about U.S. policy in Iraq by contrasting them with what General Petraeus is doing now is little more than Monday morning quarterbacking. (It's worth noting parenthetically that Sullivan may have failed even as a Monday morning quarterback. Via Glenn Reynolds, Hanson maintains quite credibly that "what I wrote proves the exact opposite of [Sullivan's] allegation." If this is true, who indeed is the "fabulist?") But the argument I'm making would be the same even if Sullivan were right in his critique of what Hanson said years ago. Offering opinions and advice about the propriety of military policy, or suggestions as to how things might be improved -- that is opinion. Far from offering opinion or advice, what Scott Beauchamp did was to give chilling and heinous factual accounts. It has become quite clear that the accounts were false. Hence the "fabulist" title has been bestowed on Beauchamp. To make it painfully clear, a "fabulist" is someone who makes things up! If I say that Hillary Clinton will beat Barack Obama and she does not (or offer a candidate advice that turns out to be ill-advised), I do not become a fabulist. However, if I said that during my drive to New Jersey today, I was pulled over and beaten by the police when I wasn't, then I become a fabulist. I don't think it should be necessary to spell this out in such exquisitely obvious detail. But hey, give me a break. I'm only trying to deconfabulate a word I think is being misused. UPDATE: Might there be a neurological explanation of how people form associations? In a brief post about magic, Ann Althouse links a Times piece which implicates the left brain: The left brain, as Dr. Gazzaniga put it, is the confabulator, constantly concocting stories.I try to use blogging as a way to constantly fisk my left brain. Except when I'm feeling creative! That's when I engage and unleash my left brain, and let it do its thing, unfisked and unchallenged. (I try not to take it seriously, though.) UPDATE: Describing Andrew Sullivan as someone who "inspired me to get into blogging," Lance at A Second Hand Conjecture is now disappointed and saddened: Hanson's analysis may be a failure to many, but on this matter it is game, set, match for Hanson.It's doubly sad. And I feel the same way. (Via Glenn Reynolds.) UPDATE: My thanks to Pajamas Media for linking this post. And via PJM, Real Clear Politics asks a good question: I don't know who's in the most pain: Sullivan, Hanson or their readers looking for a higher level of discourse?Again, I think this is sad; the title reflects my usual dark humor. I've been reading Andrew Sullivan for years, and I miss being able to count on his good common sense which always used to be there. UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking this post! More confabulation noted by Confederate Yankee, who has a great recap of the Beauchampt affair. And don't miss Mickey Kaus who links Dean Barnett's analysis, and Pajamas Media's roundup on TNR's latest offensive. posted by Eric on 08.22.07 at 11:50 PM
Comments
The problem comes when the Left declares its own opinions as fact. Witness Anthropogenic Global Warming and how apostates are treated by the true believers. Darleen · August 23, 2007 1:04 AM I think what Andrew was trying to say is that VDH is fabulous. Jeffersonian · August 23, 2007 9:14 AM Ripper, I agree. There was a time when Andrew Sullivan was my favorite blogger. I still visit him because he sometimes puts together interesting quote collections, but I rarely read his own words--and when I do, I usually regret it. He has completely lost his analytic faculties. He can't tell opinion from fact, and he thinks posting a quote that supports his position (no matter the source) constitutes proof that he is right. tim maguire · August 23, 2007 11:26 AM I'm not sure why the rather exotic term "fabulist" is employed here. Beauchamp is simply a liar. Foer is simply a liar. Sullivan is a nut and a liar. These mutts are living in a fiction of their own creation wherein THEY, of course, know all the answers because they make up all the facts. Sullivan is truly depressing. It is like watching a maiden aunt develop a final tolerance to her brain meds. There is only one stop left. Is Sullivan still anti-Islamist? Or has he joined the Left/Caliphate alliance? Won't be long in any case. megapotamus · August 23, 2007 11:53 AM Darleen, I'm still cleaning the coffee off my leather couch. And out of my nose. Fabulous! sean · August 23, 2007 1:06 PM Dr. Gazzaniga is an interesting guy. In an interview with Wm Buckley he said cocaine ought to be legalized. BTW he is an outstanding brain scientist. M. Simon · August 23, 2007 1:38 PM One may say what one likes about Mr. Sullivan, but the fact remains that, TTBOMK, he is one of the only two upper-list bloggers (the other being Dean Esmay) with the intestinal fortitude to take and defend a correctly objective moral and ethical stand against routine and ritual male genital amputation. He may froth and slaver in patent irrational error on other matters, but on this one particular issue he is far more righteous than the vast overwhelming majority of not only the blogosphere but professional journalism in general. Acksiom · August 23, 2007 2:59 PM Oh, the anti-circumcision folks are out now. Calling something "mutilation" does not make it so--is cutting hair or fingernails "mutilation"? What about tattoos and piercing? Come on. I remember when being against male circumcision was something that only Kramer on Seinfeld was. Gabriel Hanna · August 23, 2007 3:45 PM Calling removal of the foreskin Genital Amputation? Please. That's silly hyperbole not befitting of anyone who wishes to be taken seriously on anything. ThomasD · August 23, 2007 4:33 PM I think, though, that Sullivan would appreciate the sentiment. He is, above all, self-obsessed and sexually obsessed at that. If circumcision is an atrocity it is no wonder he can call water-boarding "torture". For the record, I was circumsized secularly and if it has made me miss a step neither I nor any informed persons can object. megapotamus · August 23, 2007 5:33 PM Andrew Sullivan attacking Victor Davis Hanson is quite amusing. Emotion vs. Logic and reason. No contest. Andrew Sullivan lost it some time ago. Roy E · August 23, 2007 10:39 PM Andrew appears to have jumped on the "Obama as newest fad" bandwagon. I have not read any in-depth look at what OBAMA IS from this Obama as "fresh face" cheerleader. I read a comment about this guy that said "Andrew's all about what Andrew is interested in at this time," which is somewhat of a paraphrase. I don't know why this guy is linked to David Horowitz, who's site, Front Page Magazine, has much to say and it's well-done. Andrew Sullivan appears to be nothing more than a reactionary. mark peevey · August 24, 2007 9:18 AM Post a comment |
|
April 2011
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2011
March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 Sarah Hoyt Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
• People Are Not Rational • No Biorobots For Japan • The Thorium Solution • Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera • Voter Fraud? • This war of attrition is driving me bananas! • Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry? • Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression? • Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood
Links
Site Credits
|
|
It's been very sad to watch Andrews decline. The fact that he's still readable, even as a slim fraction of the writer he was 10 years ago, is testament to how good he was at the start.
I am not looking forward to the day that I must swear off reading him entirely. But I know that day is coming. I want to remember his as he was - robust and clean, insightful, sharp. I don't want to remember him as a raving, withered man screaming on the streetcorner.