In the midst of my latest site outage (which led first to apoplexy, then to a mini-stroke) I fell unconscious for a several minutes, during which time I dreamed I was standing on an old wooden peach crate in Hyde Park, my shabby clothes in a state of obvious disrepair, preaching the righteousness of a recent Colorado supreme court ruling that’d forced upon a disapproving public, by judicial fiat, the right of spider monkeys (and, by extension, other captive zoo animals) to sue, under habeas corpus, for relief from “anthropomorphic capitalist oppression” and for the right to self-determination and franchise under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Then, as if by magic, I suddenly found myself transported to the White House, where I sat in the Oval Office—now strangely decorated in a late 60s daisy and mint motif—and, in tones of great solemnity, spoke to one of my advisors about how as President I needed to pay a visit to Ms. Emma Phillipox of Des Moines, IA, who—thanks to a prolonged drought and a particularly hot August—had lost her prized herb garden. Ms Phillipox, it seems, was especially devastated by the loss of her sage shrub, which, in its prime, I was told, “was as lush and green as the rainforests (if the rainforests were, y’know, really small, and made of sage”).
Bottom line? As President, I realized that it was my job to make restitution—and to make sure that the federal government instituted an enormous bureaucratic program to provide relief to all the sufferers of herb garden demise—no matter what the costs. Because the look on Ms. Phillpox’s face as she received her federal largesse? Priceless.
Of course, when I woke to the dog licking mayonnaise off my cheek, I knew enough not to call my dream classically liberal. But then, I’m not a completely self-delusional shill, either.
I can only tell you’re not Andrew Sullivan because there’s mention of neither beagle nor boyfriend. Was there some other clue?
Gov. Blanco’s trusted advisor is working to see that, in addition to Ms. Phillpox, you get to get to see that same smile on the face of her poor, destitute insurance company as well.
You’re certainly not turning in to AS, but you are being too nice to him. It’s OK, go ahead and let it out. I felt so much better when I did.
Er, can we do something about your hosting solution? Those guys are impacting your writing and our reading and I think they should be taken out to the treeline and shot.
What’s wrong with my writing? Aside from the obvious, I mean?
Channeling Helen Thomas is sometimes confusing. The bloated feeling and a slight metallic taste in the mouth are the tip-off.
Remember, never expect more of technology than you are willing to do without on a fairly regular basis.
I meant as in “Maybe you can write while having apoplexy and a mini-stroke.” I couldn’t.
As to obvious, I once rose to Ilyka’s bait but shan’t now. I will say that Ilikea Ilyka and Ilyka says “Ilyka Damen”, butIdontknowso.
“devastated”, Jeff. Unless you meant to tangentially imply that poor Mrs. Phillipox was lost her vest when her sage died, in which case…never mind.
TW: where, as in: where have all the schoolmarms gone?
“Channeling Helen Thomas”
If Jeff morphs into Andrew Sullivan, I’m going to kill myself.
How dare you Jeff! Don’t you know that Andrew is a FIERCLY INDEPENDENT thinker that will never compromise his principles (whatever those may be at the moment) to appease party line hacks such as yourself…AND he will never cease to remind his readers of his own special constitution (whilst rattling tip jar) that separates him from the small “partisan” minds that believe in petty phantoms like intellectual consistency.
For shame.
So this is a parody? And there’s no federal largesse coming my way?
I thought that was one of my unalienable rights, as discussed in an earlier post–but then I got lost in the whole freedom of expression thingy with Salman Rushdie, Red Crescent (isn’t the correct spelling Croissant-or is French now passe?), and that anti-Semite Ozzy Wadard (what is that all about?).
And what’s wrong with self-delusional shills? Yeah, if we didn’t have the NYTimes, CBS, and MSNBC (and, well, politicians), we’d notice them a lot less, but then where else would those of us in red state America find so much comedy material? (We’d have to move to NYC or Los Angeles, and see it in person! Ughh!)
So, Jeff, just explain to Ms. Emma Smallpox what she needs to do to put a paypal button on her herb garden blog, and wheelbarrows full of nickels and dimes will come rolling in.
I feel better now, don’t you?
TW: self–you can’t make this stuff up.
Wait wait wait…are you trying to imply that Andrew is…you know…well, he “prefers the company of men?” Now I’ve heard everything! Why doesn’t he ever mention it?
Hm. Strange dream. I wonder what it means.
”…a FIERCLY INDEPENDENT thinker that will never compromise his principles (whatever those may be at the moment)”
Just wanted to see that bit again.
Umm, Are you sure that was a dream?
Via BlameBush!, I just found this factually-challenged hackjob by a certain, shall-we-say, excitable “classical liberal.”
If you can’t be bothered to read it, it lists a hit parade of Wadard, jbg, Ken, and ghandi’s favorite talking points. To wit:
-Bush slashed the funding to strengthen the levies…BECAUSE OF IRAQ!!!
-The LANG members who shoulda been keeping order on the mean streets “are deployed in the deserts of Iraq, in an increasingly unpopular war.”
-Nevermind that last bit, because BUSH SHOULD’VE SENT IN THE ARMY!!! [no mention of the constitutionality of such a move, natch.]
-CONDI WAS SHOE SHOPPING WHILE THOUSANDS DIED!!!
-BUSH DOESN’T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE!!! [in so many words]
-FEMA=teh sux0rz!!1!
-Finally, New Orleans=Iraq.
Notably absent was any mention of how gay marriage might have improved the situation. Something else also, for some strange reason, never gets mentioned…the name of a certain Governor whose name-o begins with B and ends with O. I wonder why?
I think you mean “drought”, but using “draught” [a serving of drink (usually alcoholic) drawn from a keg] actually is funnier.
My brain is officially fried.
Its been saute’ for quite a while, Jeff. Who dumped it into the fryer?
But if you were Andrew Sullivan, and you woke up with a dog licking your face…you would have immediately thought about how dogs are being used in prisoner interrogations at Gitmo. And while you might think your dog is cute, Arab men don’t like dogs, and even having to share space with them in Gitmo is PRISONER ABUSE. And this dog was licking your freakin’ face and the entire US Military just let it happen.
You would then curse Rumsfeld and Gonzales for creating the policy that allowed that dog to torture you and with every lick make a mockery of your rights under the Geneva Conventions. And you would link to a daily kos diarist to back you up, but you would’t be a kos diarist.
I just want to get my quibble on and note that it’s habeas corpus.
Sorry for being such a prig, but both my latin and law profs would be very unhappy with me if they found out I let that slip by.
Actually, the easiest way to tell you’re not Andrew Sullivan is that your site can be viewed without threat of cornea damage.
Like 99.9 percent of grown-ups with websites in 2005, you use plain-old black text on a plain-old white background. You know — the format that human beings have preferred since, like, 1455 or so.
Now, back in ye olden days of the Web — circa ’96 — it made sense for designers to toy around with various schemes. The Web was in its trial-and-error phase, and every conceivable look was whipped up as we all figured out what did and didn’t work. That process is still underway to some extent, but consensus was reached years ago on most of the basic rules-of-thumb.
Light-text/dark-background is right atop that list of understood no-no’s. A significant portion of Web users find that scheme simply unbearable — a fact borne out by ample anecdotal evidence and lots of Real Scientific Research.
But this is much more than a simple aesthetics matter. I can’t for the life of me understand why anybody who bothers to write — particularly someone in the persuasion business! — would tolerate any obstacle between himself and his prospective readers. Let alone willingly insert such an obstacle and then get all huffy and defensive about it, as Sullivan has frequently done.
If you believe your thoughts have value, and I assume Sullivan does, why wouldn’t you do everything possible to ensure they’re communicated efficiently? Why would you stick with something — something utterly unnecessary! — that you know may turn away prospective readers?
There’s a reason that sites like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc., don’t use dark blue backgrounds and white fonts.
Yes, I know that Sullivan, after relentless reader complaints, finally set up an option that allows users to switch the color scheme. But there it is again — another unnecessary burden on the reader, another impediment to efficient communication.
(Samizdata is another site that inexplicably maintains a slavish devotion to the white-on-blue thing. Since their content is among the best political stuff on the Web, I actually harbor a visceral hatred for their insistence on rendering it illegible.)
At any rate … Yes, Jeff, you’re definitely not Andrew Sullivan.
I knew enough not to call my dream classically liberal. But then, I’m not a completely self-delusional shill, either.
Thank you. When I read that “classical liberal” b.s. I nearly lost my mind. A mini-stroke, if you will.
Chris, I think this tendency of colorizing the background kind of goes hand and hand with that “prefers the company of men” thing. Like:
Style vs. function
Estrogen vx. testosterone
ying vs. yang
But definitely not in a sexist kind of way!
Where the hell did ying vs. yang come from!
YIN vs. Yang
Sheesh!
Perhaps you had soaked up, via cultural osmosis, the laughable illiteracy of these ubiquitous pop hitmakers?
Sullivan went from an decent read to unreadable to this. Personally I like this latest phase the best. It’s pure comic gold.
If you’re not convinced, it helps to picture him holding his hands out as he weeps and blusters like one of those bad summer stock actors.
Even better, it helps to picture him holding his hands out during the fundraising “pledge weeks” he stages, which are invariably followed by immediate announcements that “I’m going on vacation for a month” or “I have decided to retire from blogging.”
Mickey Kaus has famously labeled Sullivan “excitable.” I think a more accurate phrase is “rash, impulsive and unreliable.”
Sullivan seems to have taken Emerson to heart: ‘the way of life is wonderful–it is by abandonment’; ‘a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds’.
Yup. The only problem I see here is that a man who should be out flat on his back under a maple tree with a bottle of laudanum writing overwrought poetry about the ‘refulgent summer’–is instead trying to pass himself off as a political commentator.
BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRACY! BUSH LIED!
We all know you’re nothing like Sullivan. I mean, it’s fair to say that you get your fair share of criticism in your comments section.
Your response to that criticism is to answer your critics back, not publish fawning emails from supporters.
Actually I think Sullivan would prefer “mercurial”, “capricious”, or just plain “whimsical” over excitable.
It would be more, you know bohemian and all that. (Not to be confused with actual Bohemians.)