Let me reminisce about last year's bout with the fluid. It was the day after one of those presidential debates that we paid such close attention to back then:
I noticed from my Sitemeter that I'm getting referrals from the Washington Post, so I check over there and see:Then:Jim Rutenberg in the New York Times watched television commentators and "livebloggers" last night. ...Oh, I'm blogging as a Democrat? Well, I read it in the New York Times, so it's probably true. Did Rutenberg read enough of my blog to see that I'm voting for Bush, or is he just concluding from the fact that I don't mind saying that I observed spittle in the corner of Bush's mouth that I must be opposed to him? Maybe Rutenberg is assuming that these bloggers are all so partisan that if they say one thing against a candidate, they must say everything against that candidate.
"Just after 10 p.m., the Democratic Web blogger Ann Althouse wrote . . . : 'A glob of foam forms on the right side of his mouth! Yikes! That's really going to lose the women's vote.' "
Why no referrals from the New York Times on Sitemeter? WaPo made my name into a link, but the Times doesn't do links. In fact, where WaPo has the ellipsis above, the Times has "on Althouse.com," which is neither the name of this blog nor the URL. And why two b's in "Web blogger"?
For all the thousands of things I've written about the election, the big recognition I get is for seeing spit in the corner of Bush's mouth? Ah, I suppose I deserve to get picked on for something small since I was picking on Bush for something small, which of course, for MSM, symbolizes what small, small, pajama-wearing, ankle-biters these bloggers--b-bloggers!--are.
[T]he Washington Post and the NYT are paying attention to my paying attention to a glob of foam that formed in the corner of President Bush's mouth last night.Maybe I'll put in a Google Alert for the various bodily fluids and pursue this line of blogging in earnest, since it's worked so well in the past. Any other bodily-fluids blogging? -- you may wonder. Well, there's this, from back when this blog was young:
Me and presidential bodily fluids, talked about in the big newspapers! I feel like the new Monica Lewinsky!
Fascinating though this high-level MSM attention is, it's the Belmont Club that is linking to my spittle-spotting and saying something interesting about it. Is it "vacuous," as one of the commenters on that post says, to judge people from their faces or are we tapping into some deep, subconscious skill that evolution has built into our eyes and our brains?
I was annoyed when the mango juice sold in the Law School snack bar changed its name from Fantasia (no connection to American Idol) to Naked. When I'm consuming liquid, I don't want to contemplate nakedness. That's just wrong: why are you making me think of bodily fluids?Why? Just to get to you!
Posts
19 comments:
I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
There's still communists around? Didn't they get the memo?
My problem is that anytime I hear or read the phrase "bodily fluids" I immediately and uncontrollably think of "exchange of," which, of course, leads to ponderings of a serious, unfunny disease. (I'm old enough to remember the first wave of AIDS ed, which, before the "safe sex" or "safer sex" mantra was much more clinical about what you were trying to avoid: that is, "an exchange of bodily fluids).
So I sort of hope we won't be going there too often ... It makes me sad (having known people who have died from AIDs).
Reader_Iam, then don't think about serious, unfunny disease that can be caught from the exchange of bodily fluids. Think about the funny ones, like the clap, instead!
Iam: If you're going to let reminders of death distract you in this life, you'll be lost. They're everywhere.
Ann: True enough, and point well taken.
Usually, though, I'm pretty solid and OK with death (Lord, now that's a weird phrase!). This is probably just linked to a particular place and time and type of people in my life.
Oh, well enough of that!
Gobs of foam, on the other hand--now THAT I can get jiggy 'wit!
1946, Mandrake.
Well, if you lived in CA you could write about phlegm. We are now into our fourth...fifth day of Santa Ana winds and below 15% humidity, inflaming sinuses yearning to breathe free and inflaming tempers as well:
(Raymond Chandler) "...those hot dry [winds] that come down through the mountain passes and curl your hair and make your nerves jump and your skin itch. On nights like that every booze party ends in a fight. Meek little wives feel the edge of the carving knife and study their husbands’ necks. Anything can happen.”
Oh no no no no no. Let's not start in on vomit, now. You might tempt me into my whole riff on persistent perpetual puking, and that would be, well, an unholy mess.
For now I'll refrain (except to say that my kid's nickname until about 3 was Spufford, our regular babysitters knew to bring at least one spare set of clothes, and I, I am proud to say, am an expert at effectively, efficiently and even discreetly removing said bodily fluid from everything from dryer-lint slots to computer keyboards to pianos to the CD display section at the local Borders).
No, no let's gag this topic one back ...
Did you ever think you'd get such notoriety for the subject matter?
Hilarious.
Effluvia blogging, a new genre championed by former law-blogger Prof. Ann Althouse.
So let's see we've had recently semen, and pus. I'm pretty sure there have been posts that have mentioned urine, feces (the runnier the better), vomit (lots and lots of vomit), blood, sweat, tears (you've made me so very happy), mucus and whatever discharges emanate from squirrels.
I don't think we've had milk, milky discharges, eye crud, snot (a variety of mucus, but somewhat separate in most people's taxonomy of bodily fluids), and I'm out, someone with a greater medical knowledge (or a German, how they love the scat) will have to add to this list.
So, Prof. get to blogging, we need to know your views on adults nursing (that would cover the milk, J.D. Rockefeller was supposed to have paid for this service in his dottage), milky discharges (yay clap), and any of the other fluids not yet mentioned (or not).
(and turns out effluvia isn't the fluids but odors and vapors, effluent would be closer, but I like the sound of effluvia better, so indulge me)
Ruth Anne: Yeah! Thanks for reminding me. I did once go out of my way to vomit-blog!
"whatever discharges emanate from squirrels."
Squism.
I would imagine the dollar amount to get Prof. Althouse to injest some squism would need to be expressed in scientific notation.
(my guess $((1x10^100)^100) a googolplex of dollars might do it)
(and responding to my off-color humor (bring back the medical theories based on the bodily humors, seems to be the theme here, almost) will only encourage farther musings along the same lines, but it's just my small attempt at reviving Swiftian satire, oh how he loved describing bodily fluids)
And Ruth didn't recall lactation blogging, my bad.
XWL: I'm going to think about being "Swiftian." Thanks for giving me something to aspire to. As a reward, here's an old link to something I said about breast milk. And, btw, breastfeeding is one of my topics. I know a lot about breastfeeding.
This is getting to be a bit much, but I was referencing breast feeding adults (hence the scurrilous Rockefeller rumor, you think the current Senator picked up the habit?), not babies (which is either just gross, or kinky depending on your point of view, feeding adults that is, not the kiddies)
And glad you are an aspirant to Swift (or is that expectorant?)
My own blog is called immodest proposals(and yes I use minima partly cause I like how it looks over here) so my Swiftian leanings are clear, and this post is a feeble attempt at swiftian satire.
/end self-promotion mode
(and I guess the idea of injesting squism is far too shocking to even respond to the suggestion)
Post a Comment