Sullying Ourselves A few days

Sullying Ourselves

We had, if only for a day, made the “weblogging” big-time. But, naturally, it was not all fun and games. Having appeared in such a popular forum, our humble “weblog” was likely to take some lumps from jealous sorts.

And this leads us to the topic of today’s post. An hilariously myopic “website” known as “Sullywatch” decided to take issue with the fact that Mr. Sullivan had deigned to link to our humble “weblog.” Sullywatch, for those of you who don’t like to read arrant piffle, is a “weblog” entirely devoted to criticizing Andrew Sullivan.

Talk about single-mindedness! Sullywatch makes a one-trick pony seem as if it can do at least two tricks. Maybe three.

The author of Sullywatch, in order to demonstrate what a classy fellow he is, has placed the following quotation at the top of his “weblog”:

You’re a funny man, Sully…that’s why I’m going to kill you last.

How clever! For those of our readership unacquainted with ghastly B-movies, this is a reference to an unheralded Arnold Schwarzenegger film. And it’s also a clear touting of violence. Wow. Not only must the author of Sullywatch be an ardent fan of high culture, he must also be a really delightful chap. It will come as a big surprise to our readership, then, to find that Mr. Sullivan has entirely ignored the lunatic ravings of Sullywatch.

Having stooped so low as to discuss the sordid world of Sullywatch, we may now come to its excoriation of our humble post on “breastcasting.” In italics you will find the illiterate ramblings of Sullywatch, to which our own humble commentary is affixed:

Just what was he [Mr. Sullivan] thinking when he shared that “Breastcasting” link? Of a pun we don’t quite get, and, even if we did, would rate at best a sarcastic “ha?”

Already the moron who writes Sullywatch has demonstrated his confusion. Did he or did he not get the “pun” that he thinks is involved in our humble post? We aren’t quite sure what the “pun” is, but we have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Sullywatch is distinctly lacking in the humor department. If so, Mr. Sullywatch is not a funny man…and that’s why we should kill him first.

Notice also, dear reader, the fact that Mr. Sullywatch has already offered a grammatical error: The question mark in the second sentence should appear outside the quotation mark. May we humbly suggest that Andrew Sullivan would never make a third-grade error such as this? May we also humbly suggest that this is one of the reasons why he is a world-famous journalist, and Mr. Sullywatch is an angry nobody?

Even last year, he probably would have skipped that blog. Replete with sophomoric writing that barely meets even the minimal standards of 1980s college conservative newspapers (and boy do the writers seem terribly pleased with themselves!), its own item doesn’t even make any sense. If they think that this is a wasteful way to spend public monies, did they even notice (since they reprinted the whole thing) the part about two-figure donations? Why solicit donations for a publicly-funded event?

Well, well, well: Mr. Sullywatch, in his inimitable clunky prose, takes issue with our humble musings. We suppose that we shouldn’t be so pleased with ourselves: We’d be far more content if we composed a moronic “weblog” solely devoted to criticizing a journalist whose stature Mr. Sullywatch would never meet. That would make us really proud.

But never mind Sullywatch’s tin-eared critique of our writing. Let’s hone in on his idiotic argument. According to Mr. Sullywatch, an event that receives donations cannot also receive public funding. And the reason is…? Oh, that’s right: Mr. Sullywatch hasn’t offered one.

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” learned from one of our correspondents at our Chapel Hill (NC) office that the “artist” who makes the “breastcasts” regularly charges far more than the requisite $10 to $25. Just where do you think the rest of the money comes from? Perhaps even a chucklehead like Mr. Sullywatch could figure out that brainteaser.

In addition, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the artistic genius behind “breastcasting” was offering her services at a far cheaper rate. Even if this were the case, the university sponsors would still have to flip the bill for the man hours (excuse us: Womyn hours) involved in organizing the affair, as well as pay for the advertising, &c.

May we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” humbly suggest that even this sum would be a waste of public funds, given the financial straits in which the University of North Carolina finds itself each year?

And this leads us to the author of Sullywatch’s pathetic peroration:

And why react to an event that really doesn’t strike us as all that bizarre, given all the other things conservatives have gone out of their way to highlight from campus women’s (OK, womyn’s) groups?

In a typical example of his artless prose, Mr. Sullywatch has come to the crux of the matter: He does not believe that making plaster of Paris casts of naked female torsos at taxpayer expense in order to “celebrate the diversity of the female form” and somehow boost awareness of breast health is stupid.

Well, gee. We suppose that we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” respectfully disagree. We think that it’s absurd.

Just imagine if the university offered its male corollary: Plaster of Paris casts of men’s scrotums to “celebrate the diversity of the male form” and somehow boost awareness of testicular cancer. Wouldn’t this seem uproariously inane?

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” think so, but we have the sneaking suspicion that Mr. Sullywatch would be first in line for the scrotal casting.

If only he had any balls.