Ann Coulter's motivation becomes clear: The woman has a persecution complex and finds validation in it, rather than in her own ideas.
"Excellent!" she said. "Excellent. It is a good thing, not a bad thing, to be attacked by the enemy."...and then:
...she said that Times columnist Maureen Dowd doesnít mind her, even after being heaped with abuse in Slander. "Sheís attacked me," Ms. Coulter said. "I think itís good P.R. In fact, Iím a little disappointed she hasnít attacked me recently."And, of course, she's a tactless twit:
Then she said: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."...and has far too high an estimation of herself:
Ann Coulter is not a screeching reactionary?Uh, no, Ann - you don't. Having a bestseller is not that big of a deal - especially when Michael Moore - who might as well be the anti-Ann Coulter, has the #4 non-fiction best-seller in the country. Get over yourself.
"The American people donít think so. I speak for them."
A NEW BOOK ABOUT FLIGHT 93 is out. At first, I was looking forward to reading about it - learning a little more about the final moments of the heroes on that plane. And then I wondered if Lisa Beamer had anything to do with the book.
Of course, she did. She wrote it.
Lisa Beamer has been in the camera's eye every moment possible after her husband was killed on Flight 93. At first, I chalked it up to being distraught and trying to come to grips with his death. Now I'm leaning more towards media whore - a book, t-shirts, hats, a Foundation, copyrighting the common phrase "Let's roll."
Hell, if you even visit the Todd M. Beamer website, you don't get a picture of Todd - you get one of Lisa. Oh wait, you get a small picture of what is probably Todd from the back. Woopity doo.
Don't get me wrong - Todd Beamer and the others on Flight 93 were heroes that day. Lisa seems determined to cheapen their memory.
But in the end, this famous widow would just as soon fade into anonymity and honor Toddís memory by raising his children well.Uh, Lisa, here's how we fade into anonymity - when Dateline asks for an interview, you say "Thank you, but no."
I'm currently reading Stephen King's On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft, and a certain passage caught my attention:
"...and the reader must always be your main concern; without Constant Reader, you are just a voice quacking in the void."It stuck in my mind because of something another blogger, who shall remain anonymous, wrote a couple of months ago in a thinly-veiled attack on yours truly. He said that if you're writing for any reason other than your own satisfaction, you shouldn't be writing.
I think he couldn't be more wrong.
If one wanted to write for the simple joy of writing, one would not feel the need nor inclination to take those words and plaster them on the internet. Websites exist to disseminate information, ideas, art, and - of course - pictures of naked hotties finding new uses for items in the produce section. If the writing effort were all about "me, me, me," then surely a journal or - for the more technically-abled - a word processing program and a saved file on the hard drive should be sufficient. Yet, the very person who claims he writes only for his own satisfaction, publishes his thoughts for all the world to see - actions speak louder than words, right?
(I suppose "Physician, heal thyself" would have been another suitable cliche at this point.)
Which is not to say that I don't gain some measure of pleasure from blogging - I certainly do. I fancy myself a natural born critic, so finding news of interest or something to rant about is always good for its solo entertainment value. Additionally, the rather lengthy inter-blog exchange on the existence of God was a chance to challenge the minds of others, and have challenges sent back for my own consideration - in my opinion, debate and discussion are two of the great joys in life.
However, ye olde hit counter isn't without purpose - it's not there to simply look pretty and add one more distraction to the page. I'm curious about who comes to this site, how they found us, and if they come back - and why - hopefully because they either enjoy what we write, or think we have something of at least modest merit in our posts. Or perhaps they find the World Wide Rant more like a tragic accident on the road and simply can't look away. No matter - I'm glad you're here.
If this is your first visit, thanks for stopping in - if you were lured here by some evil, random bloghop and are scratching out your eyes as we speak, my utmost apologies. If you're a return visitor, thanks for coming back. I hope, at the very least, you find us consistently entertaining and at least occasionally informative.
And if not, well, you get what you pay for.
Update: The Long Haired Country Boy responds to my sentiments, saying that not all writers long for readers.
However, I never said they did - I merely pointed out a disconnect in action and words when someone claims to not care about readership, but then posts their words on the internet for all to see. If you click-clack away at the keyboard for your own gratification, and store those files away for your own amusement in days to pass, more power to you - but once you post them on the internet, knowing others may read, respond, and comment - don't claim you don't care who reads them. The very act of posting them stands in defiance of such a position - on some level, a person seeks validation through either concurrence or contradiction. No?
It's the equivalent of posting your opinion on a billboard in downtown Los Angeles and then telling the press you had no concern with people reading it - obviously, you did. We don't broadcast our opinions in the hopes of hearing an ever dulling echo of our own words. Do we?