tweed demands recount

Hard to believe, friends, but the OJ has been bringing you informed and insightful commentary on performance for well over a year and a half now. And of course we do it for you, our loyal, wonderful, and refined readers. We adore you.

But you must understand, as in any vocation, it's nice to be recognized once in a while for your hard work. Naturally, I was a bit shocked, but mostly disappointed when I read Prospect Magazine's "Top 100 Public Intellectuals" released last week, only to find that the Jesters are nowhere to be found! Of course, I'm chalking this up to a clerical error. Or a problem with the chads in London.

Eco, Attali, Pamuk, Koolhaas, Soyinka, Ignatieff, Gore, Zizek. Check. Good. I'm even willing to go along with Chomsky, Dawkins, Habermas, Kasparov, Fukuyama (still public?). I'm an understanding and open-minded person.

But Hitchens? Gladwell? Friedman? What is this?; the Year of Pop Philosophy? Really? And then there's the Pope? David Petraeus?! Petraeus gets top billing over us?! My stomach is turning.

We're reasonable people, Prospect editors. We understand the politics and pitfalls of creating such a list. SSG and I would even take a seat together (right, sharky?). Don't put the public intellectuals on the same level as VH1's "Top 100 Hair Metal Songs of 1989." Public intellectuals are just talking heads enough as it is.

Comments

[sharkskin girl]

Nearly two years, dear Tweedster. Nearly two.

And, yes, I'd share a seat with you any day. We're skinny.

xxsharky