The importance of being noticed. An ur theme of this blog that explains so much of human behavior that might otherwise baffle us. We've always loved the eclecticism and artistry of Ann Althouse's blog, a sweet and savory mixture of political, cultural and legal commentary with occasional fleeting glimpses of what may be "the me nobody knows," interspersed with striking visual compositions we call "Althouse Moments." Above, a Photoshopped Althouse Moment of the Professor herself from her blog profile page.
"On the other hand, it does encourage her readers to click over to this blog," writes the estimable Ann Althouse in her latest post, headlined with a quotation from our previous offering, "Ann has her reasons, discernible in a parsing of her own comments following her post." Her take:
I'm not sure if I like that or not. On the one hand, Sissy Willis not bothering with my reasons, as she rolls along, lavishing praise on the project she has already bound herself to. ("Roger L. Simon is a genius.") On the other hand, it does encourage her readers to click over to this blog:
Screenshots of Althouse and sisu Site Meter Stats mid morning. Thanks to our concurrent Instalanches, Althouse had gotten 124 hits from us at that point, while we had gotten 75 from her. Thanks all around.
You link my blog, I'll link yours. Althouse enjoys a Sisulanche and sisu enjoys an Althouselanch (above), even as both experience the aftershocks of separate Instalanches of our own. As we blogged in "Some bloggers will do anything to be noticed" back in May of 2005:
We get our blog hits where we can. As George M. Cohan said, "I don't care what you say about me, as long as you say something about me, and as long as you spell my name right."
In fact, forget about the spelling. Just come visit, early and often!
Umm. OK. Thanks for discussing the substance of her post.
Posted by: Avierra | January 09, 2009 at 02:02 PM
As far as I can tell, there is no substance to Ann's post (really either of them). Basically she points to the article critical of Joe and says this is why she's glad she doesn't work with Pajamas Media.
Oooookay fine.
What about him does she not like? In those 2 posts, there is no "there" there. Even in the second one where she is complaining about Sissy's disagreement, she doesn't explain herself.
-- Is it because he is a plumber and is now off to do reporting from the Middle East? If she has issues with that, I hope she had issues with Peter Jennings... a high school drop out who began his career by botching up an anchor position, then running off to the Middle East to become a foreign correspondent... what exactly was his qualification for the job?
-- Is it because he openly expressed severe doubts about Barack Obama's Presidency with regard to Israel? Based on statements made by Mr. Obama prior to the election. Personally I was rather taken aback when Mr. Obama said he would sit down with the Iranians without ANY preconditions. In what particular way does that bode well for Israel? It completely contradicts his other statement about standing firmly by Israel. Should we not be questioning such diametrically opposing statements and wondering. If Mr. Obama did decide to sit down with the Iranians and bargain with them in the same manner Mr. Clinton bargained with the North Koreans - it would most certainly mean the death of Israel.
-- Is it because he was a media sensation (through no fault of his own) and now he should just slink back in a corner and shut up... even though all he did was ask a question that turned his life upside down? Is he now (after having state officials pore through his records and having television "reporters" blare any detail they could find to the world) supposed to go back to being a good little plumber, even if he thinks this is an opportunity to get something back for himself?
-- Is it because he's bald?
Of course, she could have answered this in some other post - but I didn't read it. Nor do I have time to go back and look for it. And therein lies the problem. Nothing is explained in either post - but Sissy is supposed to debate the merits of an article she points to... for all we know - Ann is merely annoyed because they would hire Joe.
Basically then she has expressed an opinion and Sissy has expressed a differing opinion. Who is right? One? Both? Neither? It will not be known until Joe actually does the job. Until that time, all is speculation.
Of course (as I said before) I'm willing to give the guy a chance. Apparently Ann isn't. Sad.
Posted by: Teresa | January 09, 2009 at 04:47 PM
I see that Sissy's hits to Ann account for 3.1% of Ann's total.
Ann's hits to her account for only 1.9%.
Should we consider Sisu to be engaged in a disproportionate response to a non-threat?
:o)
Posted by: Joan of Argghh! | January 09, 2009 at 05:24 PM
As the late, great Rob Smith used to say, he was engaged in "a ceaseless quest for adoration from people who don't know me."
That's as good a description of some of us blodgers as anything I've seen.
My cure for being obsessed over how many hits I gets is... not to get a whole lotta hits. It works!
As for Ann Althouse, I don't understand her lack of faith in ol' Joe. As a plumber, he is used to handling excrement. As a reporter, his function will be, essentially, the same. Perhaps he can mold it into pretty shapes.
Posted by: Elisson | January 10, 2009 at 08:14 AM
Avierra: Check out Teresa's comments for answers to your questions.
Teresa: Thank you for answering Avierra's questions so I don't have to.
Joan of Argghh!: I love your comment about my disproportionate response to Ann Althouse. :-)
Elisson: As I said in email this morning, the sun isn't even over the yardarm, and you've already made my day.
Posted by: Sissy Willis | January 10, 2009 at 12:26 PM