See this poll on: https://poll.fm/5750197/embed
Give others the chance to vote.
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
closed
Ha ha ha ha! For the 2nd year in a row, Sullivan's ludicrous and shameful Moore "award" has been hijacked by a truth-teller who's actively campaigned for it (while throatily disclaiming any notion of being "divisive", "bitter" or "intemperate"). And Sullivan has now surrendered, removing this Moore "award" from his latest posted list of "awards":
http://tinyurl.com/sullivan-follows-moore
Please, cast your vote for Dan Savage! And tell Sullivan what you thing of this "award":
andrew@thedailybeast.com
Maybe Dan Savage is bitter and intemperate, but I find that his rhetoric is a constructive response to people ("Santorum," et al.) who make such a mean profit on helping others to hate. He's pithy as hell -- and he sure can drive the votes -- but he always seems to side with health, safety, and freedom. We can say that of so few public figures.
A vote for Savage is a vote for the obvious truth...and for pie!
Voting for Dan Savage, because there's nothing more incendiary than the truth.
Andy is a joke. This is fun.
FWIW, I endorse Dan Savage's campaign for this "award". Dan is another truth teller being unfairly labeled as "bitter" and "intemperate" (oh my!)
Neil S, why is telling the truth labeled as "bitter" and "intemperate"? What, exactly, was "bitter" or "intemperate" in the meticulously documented Michael Moore films Fahrenheit 911 and Sicko?
"Bitter" and "intemperate" is a much better description of Andrew's reaction to Michael Moore's truth telling. Andrew wrote of Sicko: "Dammit. I'll have to see the bloody thing" and "I'll force myself to go see it and review shortly." But he never did. Then, he started "The View From Your Sickroom", collecting stories very much like those in Sicko. Then he changed his mind about the greatest of the American health care system.
So I repeat: for Andrew Sullivan to hand out a sarcastic award in the name of Michael Moore for being "bitter" and "intemperate" is ludicrous and shameful.
And Mark S., this award isn't for being wrong, it's for being bitter and intemperate. Dan Savage was also nominated for a post in which he stated the truth, about conservative opposition to the HPV vaccine, in a bitter and intemperate manner. When Michelle Bachmann lied and said the HPV vaccine caused mental retardation, that was not worthy of an award, because it was earnest.
Thoreau from HighClearing.com was also running a campaign, for his post wherein he failed to express appropriate joy at the killing of Osama bin Laden, but was then shocked to find he's not on the list. So it's Savage unopposed.
I literally have no idea what is being voted on here.
It is shameful for Andrew Sullivan to give an "award" in the name of Michael Moore. While Andrew was cheerleading the Iraq war, Michael Moore got it right in Fahrenheit 911. When Andrew heaped praise on the American health care system, Michael Michael Moore got it right in Sicko. Andrew later changed his mind on both subjects, taking positions indistinguishable from Moore's. But instead of honestly acknowledging that Moore was right and he was wrong, Andrew continues to give out this ludicrous "award".
Dan Savage is actively campaigning for his supporters to "win" him this vote. I suspect he's the only one, hence the imbalance.
I know that Dan's comments were incendiary, but shouldn't the Moore award reflect a truly wrong-headed assessment from an overly universalist perspective as well as being incendiary? I can't see how there is a more ugly, morally nihilistic statement made than Simon Winchester's.