One of the things I’m loving about our inaugural week is the variety of subject matter and tone that we’re getting from our bloggers. From the unabashedly political to the deeply personal -- such as the new postings by Bruce Cohen and Cheryl Saban (after all, what could be more personal than witnessing your daughter give birth, then blogging about it?).
What could be more personal than witnessing your daughter give birth, then blogging about it?
How about: witnessing your daughter give birth and not blogging about it.
Watching my baby have her baby was like being a sous chef for GOD -- there was nothing I could do but observe in humility and awe.
Fabulous metaphor! Because you know how a sous chef just does nothing but stand there.
[ADDED: Yes, it's a simile, not a metaphor....]
I scrolled through all the current blog posts just now. Nothing caught my eye. Just a lot of dreary pedestrian blather. Laurie David's concerned about global warming. Gary Hart is concerned about security, not just "traditional military security" but "security of livelihood, security of community, security of the environment, security of energy, and the security of thoughtful politics."
And don't forget the security of knowing you don't really need to click over to the HuffPo, because it's going to be boooorrrrriiinnggggggg.
It's so much more fun over here.
UPDATE: N.Z. Bear is making fun of the eminently risible HuffPo User Service Agreement. That and their refusal to join the Ecosystem. And show us their Site Meter.
पोस्ट्स
९ टिप्पण्या:
The Saban post was absolutely horrendous. However, I understood the meta-simile a little differently. I thought the simile was not to "sous chef," but rather to "sous chef to God." What would a sous chef to God, the perfect chef unneeding of any assistance, do? Nothing but watch and learn i awe.
Maybe I'm too charitable in my reading.
Well argued, Craig. That does explain the choice of simile, though its susceptibility to my interpretation shows the badness of it nevertheless.
Well argued, Paul! Why did I bow to Craig so quickly???
I guess the point is that the people over there are so revoltingly upper class.
oh, i hope there are a LOT of people like me for whom you've completely killed the thing sight unseen. After reading your parodies, I feel absolutely no need to go over there.
Laurie David's concerned about global warming.
Why do I get the feeling that if I went back to the HuffnBlog© a million times Laurie David would still be concerned about global warming and would have worn out her thoughts on the subject in the first post.
Annie, I'm with you -- I am getting a huge kick out of all the blogging that's going on, trashing the HuffPo, and I've been to HuffingtonsToast a few times (it really is a riot), but I've no desire to go over the real HuffPo. I did read Larry David's "defense" of John Bolton and enjoyed it, so there may be the occasional post I will visit, but I'm boycotting the main page. And I will add, BlogNazi style, "No links for you!"
I'm conflicted, though. If it fails, it won't be there to make fun of. But if it succeeds, will it be understood to have succeeded only as a source of derision? What message will we be sending if we keep linking and sending traffic over there? Is HuffPo the kind of content we should actively be seeking out?
I have no idea. But these past few days have been pretty fun.
I would like to humbly propose the following nickname for The Huffington Post: HoPo
Well, a subject near and dear to my (professional) heart. I didn't even notice the link to the user service agreement, so I suspect that they would have an extremely hard time enforcing it, should it ever be necessary.
And of course, it seems to try to limit what can be done with the "blog" - of course to no avail. Let's see them going to court when their articles are yanked and copied in order to laugh at them.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा