 |
|
Friday, January 2, 2004
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (5)
Being Andrew Sullivan -- day four
Sometime in the morning: Sisu e-mails me this:
Heh. Midday: Is double-blogging exhausting? I've received several e-mail queries on this, and my last post might have hinted that the stress of it was getting to me. Today disproves that hypothesis. What was stressing me out were the myriad technical problems. Blogger worked without a hitch, and I feel fine. I'm not in hyper-blog mode, so I focus mostly on foreign policy-related matters. The ag subsidies and multilateralism posts are easy to compose because they touch on familiar themes in my writings. On the multilateral post, I hesitate on whether to link to my old TNR essay. It was written nearly a year ago, and it holds up pretty well, but then there's this sentence:
In light of stories like this one, prose like that makes me wince a little. This is one of the downsides of writing a lot -- the overwhelming amount of stuff I'm going to get wrong. 1:00 PM: I've been spending a lot of time on-line in the past few months, and with the New Year I wonder if I should resolve to cut back. Then I see a link to the "Are You A Blogaholic?" quiz. Taking it, I get 60 out of 100, which is more than fifteen points above the mean. Nevertheless, I get this message:
I start to wonder if this quiz is the functional equivalent an online "Are you an Alcoholic?" quiz -- hosted by Jose Cuervo. 11:00 PM: Despite several hours of concentrated effort, I can think of no valid reason to mention Salma Hayek on the Daily Dish. posted by Dan on 01.02.04 at 12:35 AMComments: “I waver on whether to link to my old TNR essay.” The reality is that it only takes seconds to find the article via google.com. One merely needs to enter the following sentence: “This [European] kind of multilateralism does have some use in world politics--just not when dealing with a dictator working overtime to develop weapons of mass destruction.” (however, you must remove the parentheses) Oh well, here is the link: http://www.danieldrezner.com/policy/oneforall.htm I have a slight problem with Dan Drezner’s piece: he seems to take some of the complaints of American so-called unilateralism at face value. Our host needs to be just a bit more cynical. The Old Europeans weren’t even slightly interested in legitimate multilateralism. One must take their explicit statements with a huge grain of salt. They merely wanted to give us the middle finger. The Bush administration was placed in a no win situation. These clowns are merely immature children envious of America. It is, though, embarrassing for them to admit the obvious. Thus, they lie to themselves and pretend that their concerns are legitimate. posted by: David Thomson on 01.02.04 at 12:35 AM [permalink]According to your sources Salma Hayek rates as 80/100. In the wonderful world of women Salma Hayek grades out as a low B? I am glad to see you moving on from the Pirate Grrl. Best Wishes to all Drezners in 2004! posted by: Joseph on 01.02.04 at 12:35 AM [permalink]I can think of no valid reason ... Why would you NEED a reason, valid or otherwise? :) posted by: Gary Utter on 01.02.04 at 12:35 AM [permalink]I think it was TalkingPointsMemo that had the Pirate Grrl links. I mixed up my blogging giants. posted by: Joseph on 01.02.04 at 12:35 AM [permalink]Drez, hurry back. Won't speak for anyone but myself, so let me say that I could really give a flying # about your personal angst. I'm here to be read your spin on the politics of the day, and discuss them with others with you as a first among equals - not here about what an thrill it is for you to do this or that. That's what Mrs. Drezner is for. I'll wait for your return - for a while - but, as I said earlier, please hurry back - there being a danger in all drastic product line changes. posted by: TommyG on 01.02.04 at 12:35 AM [permalink]When coming from Brussels "multilateral" seems to have much the same connotation as it does when Washington speaks for the United States of America. An evil, America-hating leftie here, wishing everyone, even you deluded righties, a Happy New Year. And Salma Hayek is one thing we all appear to agree on. “And Salma Hayek is one thing we all appear to agree on. “ I’m afraid that Dan Drezner speaks only for himself concerning Salma Hayek. She is nothing more than an immature left wing goof ball. I refuse to forgive her for pushing the project glorifying Frida Kahlo. Hayek makes me sick to my stomach everytime I see her on the screen. posted by: David Thomson on 01.02.04 at 12:35 AM [permalink]You should adjust the Sullivan lay-out for Jan 2: there has been an error and things look messed up (scroll down). posted by: Clinton on 01.02.04 at 12:35 AM [permalink]What TommieG sez. posted by: dick tuck on 01.02.04 at 12:35 AM [permalink]Post a Comment: |
  |
