First off, I'd like to apologise to any new readers. You'll probably want to skip this and come back this weekend for a different post. This is, unfortunately, old business.

Secondly, I'd like to ask you long-timers a question, and I would like you all to answer. I know that no one of you reads every blog I go to. However, all of you read some of the blogs I go to, and all of you together pretty much cover all that I do out there.

So the question is, who has seen me, either here or out there, looking for a fight in the last two months, particularly? Who has seen me calling folks out, making snide remarks about them, or finding ways to twist the topic at hand into a criticism of someone I don't like? Who has seen me, in particular, going around putting Mark and Gekko down?

Oh, and another - who among you has been issued an ultimatum from me, or been told who you should and should not associate with?

Please, step up if you have something. You'd be doing us all a favor. You'd be helping to expose an evil in Blogovia, as well as helping me see the urgent need for psychiatric care, because I don't remember any of it.

And as I look back upon my blog, I don't see any posts about either of them since the last blowout with Mark two months ago, which was also my most recent argument with Gekko. What I see is assholes in the news, not on the net. I see cats and thirteens and blogfeeds and more assholes in the news, but not on the net. I see music. Lots of music.

And when I go to my other site, I see nothing but music. A little island of positive, it is.

Now, I do recall mentioning Mark at Lucy's a few weeks ago, but just in the context of explaining where an abusive commenter named Dick had come from. Come on, tell me I lied.

So when a friend points out that another post has been written about me, this time by Gekko, I really had to think, "What now?" Never mind that Gekko herself has told me more than once that posting about someone at your own blog instead of taking the argument to the person is cowardly. It's okay when she does it.

Well, it seems that Mark decided, very fairly and scientifically I'm sure, that Sour Grapes is an asshole. Thus, it was only natural for a sweetie like Mark is to write a post in which the entire country of Belgium, where Sour Grapes lives, was dumped in the crapper. Grapes then followed with a rather amusing comment about Mark's fellative skills, which promptly disappeared.

After this, PJ wrote a guest postie at Mark's blog, and Sour Grapes, who evidently felt slighted, voiced a criticism to PJ. Evidently, he considered her a friend (I really don't know anything about that, it is an impression I got) and wanted to know why she was "cozying up" to someone who was writing insulting posts about him on a semi-regular basis, especially after making such a show of decrying Mark's behavior and un-blogrolling him for his misdeeds before eliminating her own blog entirely shortly thereafter. I never took part in any of it, or commented about it at all anywhere.

So, obviously, you can see how this is all my fault. No?

Well, evidently it reminds Gekko of this post I wrote after the last blowout. You know, where Mark decided to tell me that I had to drive to Las Vegas to fight with him, and called me a coward because I told him to come HERE. After all, it was his challenge, and I am not obligated to drive to Vegas to meet someone that no one reading  expected to show up, anyway.  This was after making up a bunch of lies about my work and dragging my dead mother into it. Remember how fun that was? There's a link to this extremely bizarre situation in the upper right if you want to refresh.

So, in that article, I evidently told everyone that they had to choose between Mark and I. Can't be friends with us both. Have to pick. You can read the post, if you haven't already, and decide for yourself if that is what I said. I do not believe it is.

What I believe I said is this. When you see one person you consider a friend abusing and slandering another person you consider a friend, and you don't say anything about it, you are supporting the abuse and slander whether you mean to or not. You enable it. You have the right to do so, but the friend on the receiving end might not see you as a real friend. They might think, "A real friend wouldn't just look away when these things are being said about me." That person is also entitled to make his own decisions.

At no point in that essay was an ultimatum levelled. I didn't ask people to rally around my banner and attack Mark. I simply  wrote how I felt about it.  Bloggers do that.

And many people disagreed with that anyway. "We have the right to choose what blogs we comment on and who we're friends with." And that is absolutely correct. And I have the same right, as does Sour Grapes.

So, exactly how harsh have I been with my decisions? Ask yourselves that. Have any of you seen me trying to make you hate Mark or Gekko? Seen me going around telling people to avoid them?

Can anyone produce an e-mail from me asking them to avoid Mark and un-blogroll him? I know for a fact that at least one of you got just such an e-mail from Mark.

Dangerdoll, we have discussed Mark in private. I think I haven't been at all shy about expressing the depths my opinion of him has reached. Have we discussed Gekko at all, though? And have I come right out and asked you to shun Mark, or told you that I would no longer associate with you if you didn't? If so, why are you still on my blogroll? That would seem most inefficient of me.

Hey, Cody Bones, you have Mark on your blogroll. Ever hear one little peep from me about it?

Jenna, ditto?

Dawn, have I mentioned it to you?

Nat? Anything at all? In fact, if I'm going to hate on people who comment at Mark's blog, inviting them to co-write one of mine is a goofy as hell way to go about it, and that goes for Jeff as well.

How about you folks that took him off your rolls? Did you do it because I asked you to? Paula? JJ? O'Tim? Tim? Fez? Lucy? I know I sure never asked PJ to do it, she wrote that long dissertation about hypocrisy all on her little lonesome. Did ANY of you do that because I asked you to, or did you perhaps make your own decisions based on your own feelings about your own observations?

{cue Jeopardy music}

Could this be because I've removed some folks from my blogroll? I did do that recently. They were all folks whose blogs I haven't been going to, and who haven't been coming around here much if at all. Two of them never went to Mark's or Gekko's at all, as far as I know. Another one was Sour Grapes. He and I have no enmity that I recall, but we were never pals, either. These things happen, and every single blogger eventually adjusts their roll for the same reason.

 So why am I writing all this? Well, one must stand up for one's self. If people lie about you, and you make no effort to show the truth, then people tend to believe the lie. And these same things keep being dredged up over and over and over, many months later, with subtle tweaks here and there. Unless you've seen me hate-mongering  all around Blogovia, you might ask yourself why that is.

Another reason is this, though. I want to point out the obvious to those of you who still believe that it takes two to start a fight. That isn't the case where some folks are involved.

In fact, it should be obvious that I haven't done anything since the last fight but leave those two absolutely alone. Again, if you've seen me stirring up shit at your blog or another, speak up now. I think it should be obvious now that someone DOES want to stir some up, though, and that someone wants very much to change people's opinion of someone else. I think we can see that someone is a definite target.

Who do you think is filling which roles?

Sometimes, like when I read news items like this one, I think that perhaps it's a bit too easy to get your day in court. At least, it is if you're rich and famous.

J.K. Rowling, one of all too few people who are celebrities for writing books, is the plaintiff in this case. Evidently, her level of celebrity is insufficient, and she needs to pretend that she's got the same problems that the likes of Britney and Paris have.

Her complaint is that while she was walking her 20 month old son down a public street in a baby buggy, one of those paparazi types took the lad's picture. He didn't muscle through any bodyguards, cause a nuisance, or badger them, though.... he took the pic from a considerable distance with a telephoto lens. The charge? He violated little whatsizname's privacy.

Now, I have, on many occasions, supported the celebrity's right to privacy. I do not think that making a movie or releasing a CD gives everyone in the world carte blanch to riffle through your garbage, camp outside your house, or take photos of every shit you take. I also think that people who need to see pictures of that shit because "I bought the CD so she owes me" are, on the whole, pathetic wastes of precious, precious oxygen. When someone like Sean Penn whallops a photog, I can easily see the point that the photog in question may have earned the whallop.

However, this is J.K. Rowling. She is famous, but not THAT famous. I recognize the name, but wouldn't know her if I saw her in a restaurant. People would not be interested in that little boy forever, especially if she really DOES stop writing those books. If people are still interested in this kid at his current age of four, it's most likely because of this court case.

Secondly, she was on a public street. There are three reasons to roll your baby down a public street. The first is to get the child some fresh air. The second is to get yourself out of the house for a bit, and get some fresh air and exercise for yourself. The third - and least admitted to - reason is to show the baby off a bit. I know, I've seen the blog posts about the stupid questions and things people say, but still, what mom doesn't love being told how beautiful her baby is? Let's be honest - mothers eat that up like a starving bear with a fresh salmon. Now, call me old fashioned, but a public street is not where I go for privacy. And the photographer, according to the article, kept his distance. He didn't impede their progress down the street, didn't bother them, didn't pop a flash off in the kid's face. He took a photo from a distance of a baby being walked down a public street. How does that violate privacy? No, he didn't ask permission, but really - what celebs even expect that anymore when they're in public? How many - like Britney- would consider it a major victory just to have these guys back off a little and take their shots from a distance, instead of trying to crawl up her cooch for a money shot?

And as far as privacy itself goes, whose are we really talking about? The kid's? A 20 month old doesn't need privacy. In fact, I would venture to assert that no one who hasn't been toilet trained yet needs privacy at all. In fact, they need near constant attention. They really don't do well when left to themselves. And now that he's reached the ripe old age of 4 years, I'm betting he still doesn't understand the loss of privacy he evidently suffers from, or how his mother is fighting for him.

No, I think Ms. Rowling is really pitching this fit for herself, but the question is "why?" She's more famous than most authors can ever hope to be in this age of lightning-fast media and video games. Yet, she can still walk down the street without being mobbed by photographers getting in her face and impeding her movement.

For someone in her line of work, isn't that close to being the best of both worlds?

Before I present this month's proctological hopefuls, I'd just like to state that YES, I know the biggest asshole in the universe last month was the president. Starting with plucking Scooter Libby out of prison and continuing with ordering his minions to defy congressional subpoenas, the Asshole-in-Chief has proven once again that he not only doesn't care about being a good president, he also doesn't care about being a good American. He is not below, however, because he was the winner for last year, and if he were still eligible, well, when would he ever lose???????

So with reasonable fanfare, here's the assholes for July!

Judith Leekin - You aren't even a human being. (7)

Jon Bon Jovi - Yeah, it's all about the washed-up has beens.

Alberto Gonzales - Always a bridesmaid. (2)

Michael Vick - You aren't looking too human these days, either. (4)

Lara Madden - That stage name was not an accident, or a funny joke. (1)

Daniel Ellis - You forgot "asshole".

There were a few more, but one is going to get his own post because he's not so much an asshole as a disgusting pig. Another one was more of a criminal than an asshole upon reflection, although it is easy to be both (see Judith and Michael). The other was Tony Snow, and hell, "asshole" is his job description.

I will now leave the jury to deliberate.

Okay, I really don't understand all this stuff yet, but I think I did it. I was pointed to the Blogdrive help page for RSS feeds, which of course was vague, but better than the norm from them. They gave me a couple things to add to my address and told me to post those links in my sidebar, which I have done - it's beneath my links and above the Asshole of the Year.

So, does it work??????????????????????????

 

 

 

Just imagine - for a few brief moments, he'll understand how he makes most of us feel.