Thanks to the dutiful AtlanticWire for informing us that ACORN Takes Some Mainstream Heat – although when you delve into the article (via Instapundit) you discover that the mainstream being referred to is largely the conservative New York Post and the conservative blog Hotair. But so much the better.
Sad to say, however, that missing from this orgy of praise for truth-telling by AtlanticWire writer Heather Horn is any reference to a scandal that affects her parent publication more directly. Not one word about The Atlantic’s well-known blogger who seems to have gotten special legal dispensation when busted for pot this summer. In fact, there’s been not one word from the blogger himself eitherto my knowledge.
Now I admit this scandale is nowhere near ACORN level and I also admit I am no one to talk, having experimented with more drugs than said blogger may even know exist (I’m from a different generation – you can read about it here). But it’s an “equal protection” thing, not a “controlled substance” thing, in the end. And I wouldn’t be surprised, Godfather, that the people who have been protecting ACORN all these years are closely related, kissing cousins anyway, to the folks who helped the blogger who was panicked his joint-smoking would cost him his potential US citizenship or working papers or whatever. As Ron Radosh points out in the link above, this is a blogger who makes it a habit of bloviating about how we’re all equal before the law (except him perhaps). So where is the vaunted Atlantic on that? As of now, as they saying goes, they can “dish it out,” but they can’t take it.
UPDATE: From Sullivan:” ..it’s clear and binding legal advice that prevents me from commenting. I’m sorry about this, it’s frustrating for me, but I hope readers understand.”
Well, I’ll leave it there, even though I’m not sure what “binding legal advice” means.
Alistair Cooke once told the story of how Lady Astor rose to speak in Parliament toward the end of her career there. She went on and on, blathering, lashing out, saying she wasn’t a Conservative anymore “but then neither is Winston (Churchill).” One member turned to another and said, “Love her dearly, but I do wish she would shut up and go away.”
I also admit I am no one to talk, having experimented with more drugs than said blogger may even know exist
This makes it a tough call. Yes, Sullivan’s a hypocrite and a jerk who I used to love reading but now ignore as much as possible.
Nevertheless, losing his immigration status and the life he has built here over a possession charge cannot be called justice.
Nevertheless, losing his immigration status and the life he has built here over a possession charge cannot be called justice.
Reasonable or not, pot possession is against the law. My wife is an immigrant. When we married in 1983 and applied for her permanent residency status (the so-called “green card” that isn’t really green), we had to sign papers accepting the fact that not only did she have to obey the law, if at any time we applied for public assistance, she would be deported. Perhaps those forms have changed since 1983 but the general requirement to obey the law has not.
“Equal justice under the law” is the comforting myth we tell each other but we all know it isn’t true. I’ve see far too many examples of connected individuals getting away with things that I would go to jail for doing. If Sullivan broke the law, he should be treated exactly the same as anyone else who commits the same offense, no better and no worse. The fact that he’s getting special treatment is just another example of “Equal justice under the law” being a myth.
The Sullivan issue is not about drug “experimentation” (well-off, educated people “experiment” with drugs, while poorer, less-educated people merely “use” drugs.) It’s about equal application of the law. I don’t think too many are upset with Sullivan for smoking a joint. They are upset that his connections seem to have gotten him special treatment under the law, and they point out that this is yet another example of Sullivan’s descent into hypocrisy and irrelevance.
I have a quote from Sullivan’s blog (via a link from Ann Althouse):
…it’s clear and binding legal advice that prevents me from commenting. I’m sorry about this, it’s frustrating for me, but I hope readers understand.
If Andrew Sullivan had not turned into such a judgmental little twit, stuff like this would not be an issue. Glass houses and all that.
Larry J, so long as you accept that you and I are making two different points and that we both can be (and IMO both are) correct, we’re jake.
As an attorney, I can assure you that “binding legal advice” is meaningless nonsense. My best guess is that his sentence left the door open in some way to revisit the issue if he annoyed the prosecutor.
No problem, Andrew, we understand PERFECTLY.
“binding legal advice”? His lawyer told him that if he talks about it before it’s all settled, he’ll quit the case and Andy can be sent packing to England? Hey, why wouldn’t he want to live there anyway, they’ve got National Healthcare don’t you know.
…it’s clear and binding legal advice that prevents me from commenting.
Did somebody say “pledge drive”? Lawyers are even more expensive than bandwidth.
It’s not that Sullivan has “turned judgmental.” It’s that he has become a hypocrite and utterly intellectually dishonest. He condemns others for doing something and often does precisdely the same thing himself. This is an example. He has criticized others repeatedly for taking advantage of legal double standards.
binding legal advice = British slang for Bullsheet.