elaine just called and filled me in on something while begging me to post now and not later because she was going to call mike back. mike's furious about something. he's like a bull seeing red right now.
here's the short version. no-manners, my name for the blogger, slammed the bloggers on the left for the attention to dick cheney shooting a man. she went further telling people who made jokes about the shooting that they should be "ashamed" (thanks to sherry for forwarding me the forward because i never go to no-manners' site). in that entry she says she's delinked from a number of blogs. then she lists a long list of what bloggers should be writing about, 'important stuff.' but the next day, when new abu ghraib photos are released, she's writing about ... a willie nelson country song.
no-manners should tsk-tsk at herself.
so why do i call her no-manners? wait, i'm getting ahead of myself.
among the sites (not blogs, no-manners, the common ills is a resource/review) she delinked from was the common ills. since she's on her huffy bike about dick cheney, i'll note (she has trouble comprehending) that c.i. has talked about the shooting. c.i. has made no joke about the shooting. c.i. has pointed out that overseas coverage notes that cheney has a medical team with him due to his health condition. american press is largely reluctant to note that. for the 1st three days c.i.'s noted the shooting, that's been the focus.
but no-manners has trouble reading the new york times as well. (whole other story.) maybe we should buy her some flash cards?
so this all starts months ago when c.i. makes the mistake of including a link to no-manners that a reader noted. c.i. gets the 1st name wrong and no-manners is in an uproar. so c.i. apologizes at the site and corrects it and notes her again the next day. because c.i. tries to support women bloggers, the community panel decides to include her on the links.
so you'd think she'd be happy that any 1 bothered to note her once let alone repeatedly. doesn't happen. she feels the need to e-mail c.i. and say she doesn't care for the look of the site.
that's why i call her no-manners.
i have enough brains and manners not to walk into some 1's home and say, 'oh i hate your couch.' no-manners has no taste and apparently no brains.
so a member wrote mike about no-manners post and mike's furious. he thinks, according to elaine, that no-manners thinks she's doing heavy lifting. well, if she wants to live in the land of delusion ...
mike's also angry that the only thing resembling a 'joke' about cheney has been c.i. steering readers to wally's stuff. c.i. hasn't quoted wally because c.i. always worries about spoiling a joke.
if that's all it took to set no-manners off, so be it.
but wally's doing great work and no-manners is ... writing about an old willie nelson song.
wally's hilarious. we're all proud of wally and we don't need ms. rudeness's judgement call since she's already demonstrated that she was raised in a manners-free zone.
i remember when c.i. called me and asked, 'rebecca, is this normal?' and then told me about no-manners begruding e-mail (don't like the look of your site). i think it goes to jealousy.
she also slammed an entry by c.i. and ava and c.i. took the high road on that. me, i would've pointed out that she didn't know the 1st thing she was talking about and might want to try reading before writing on something.
so yesterday's she's screaming at the left and telling them how awful they are and how ashamed they should be. if she read a joke she didn't like, anywhere, she didn't have to laugh. did cheney hold a pellet gun to her head? see, that's a joke. 'SOME 1 WAS SHOT!' she'd scream in her attempt to be barbra streisand in the way we were ('her husband is dead!'). as robert redford says in that movie, 'some 1 told a bad joke' that's all, no-manners. at the very worst they told a bad joke.
but wally didn't tell a bad joke. and the fact that he's getting more e-mails than he ever has indicates people are enjoying his humor.
here's a hard reality for no-manners, don't be cjr. don't write what people should be writing about unless you're then going to be writing about that. don't say 'what you should be focusing on is ...' and then jerk off to a post on willie nelson.
but, bloggers of the left be warned, no-manners is taking down names and sure to give you a firm tsk-tsk.
now let's talk about something that does matter. this is from democracy now today.
GAY BAR VICTIM FILES COMPLAINT OVER MEDICAL TREATMENT
Back in the United Sates, one of the men lfet injured in an attack on a Massachusetts gay bar has filed a complaint alleging paramedics gave him poor treatment because of his sexual orientation. Robert Perry was hit in the head and shot in the back when 18-year-old Jacob Robida attacked him and two others earlier this month. Robida later killed himself during a police chase. In his complaint, Perry says paramedics delayed taking him to a hospital, were physically and verbally abusive, and shared medical information without his permission. Perry, who himself directs an ambulance service in Boston, said he had never seen an ambulance crew acting "so cruel and hate-filled."
now, it's not a willie nelson song, but i think it's important.
i really am surprised that this hasn't gotten more attention. no, i'm not scolding bloggers. i'm talking about newspapers, i've got the washington post and the new york times here each day and this hasn't gotten any real attention. more was written over the attacker killing himself (several stories in the new york times) than on the victims. in fact, other than the original article on the attack, i'm not remembering a single article that dealt with the victims at all.
what's changed since matthew shepard died? or is it, as fair's extra wondered the fact that shepard was blond, young and his body found in a such a way that the writers could note 'scarecrow'? from extra's '20 stories that made a difference:'
15. Before Matthew Shepard was beaten and left for dead in Laramie, Wyoming on October 7, 1998, homophobic violence and discrimination received little serious attention in the news or the general public. But the attack on the 21-year-old gay man struck a media nerve -- starting with an AP story (10/9/88) whose lead memorably described Shepard as having been "tied to a wooden ranch fence like a scarecrow" -- marking the first time an anti-gay attack received extensive and sympathetic coverage.
His orientation aside, Shepard's story had many of the elements that commercial media look for in a crime story: a young, good-looking white victim with a dramatic death (whose crucifixion imagery added poignancy). [. . .]
so what's changed? are the victims not seen as sympathetic? if that's the answer, are they seen as less sympathetic because of the direction the bully boy has led the nation in? three men were assaulted in a club for no other reason except that they were gay. where's the press outrage? why the desire to look the other way?
