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:

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.

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:

You are a dedicated weblogger. You post frequently because you enjoy weblogging a lot, yet you still manage to have a social life. You’re the best kind of weblogger. Way to go!

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.