Wormtongue in a bow-tie
Back about a month ago, I posted this bit about the conservative "pundit" Tucker Carlson from IMDb, as a way of pointing out how he was apparently really too stupid to be considered any kind of an authority, even if he did have his own TV show, (tho' it after turned out that he got his TV show because of his rich daddy). Well, he's back in the public eye, in Blogistan.
Now I don't watch television (no reception) & haven't for years, so TV personae aren't really as present to me as people who write a lot. "Tweety" (Chris Matthews) and the other morning and evening interview show names don't mean much to me, for this reason, that I just can't place most of them. What got me fired up was a supposedly-intelligent media spokesperson defending the "case for torture" - and on PBS mind you, which I used to watch when I did have TV access, a lot.
However, at the time, in various venues I ranted about this, and was told (not just me of course) by sundry posters that oh, Tucker wasn't so bad, not compared to the Limbutts and Hannitys and Coulters, he was a reasonable and moderate person like George Will, why look he changed his mind on the war, so he was just trying to be fair/balanced/openminded etc. I didn't change my mind on him, though. I just wondered, as I always wonder when contemplating this kind of thing.
Now, the question when you have someone supposed to be a savvy pundit type, defending the indefensible, is always posed in an either or, but of the inclusive not the exclusive or sort. Is X Evil? or Is X Merely Stupid? Or is X Evil AND Stupid?
The answer, now demonstrated amply by poster Hunter over at dKos, is that Tucker Carlson is both Evil and Stupid. The story is so horrific, I apologize, but I cannot do anything about the wretchedness of this world, nor about the vileness of such humans as Carlson.
Featherless gods, but if there was ever one reason to vote *for* someone, this is it. True, we should not be surprised to hear this from the Party which has made so much capital from its spokesghouls on the meme of "frivolous lawsuits," managing to capitalize on scorn for the weak/stupid, misogyny, and fiscal envy all in the one mendacious package of the "coffee-spill" story. (If it had been phrased by Limbutt and his minions as "an elderly grandmother received third degree burns and required skin-grafts to her groin due to scalds following repeated violations of safety regulations by MacDonalds," instead of "a woman sued after she was burned spilling coffee on her lap," the world would be a different place today. Sincerest thanks, dear Dittoheads, from your master Sharkey-)
But that Carlson knew, knew the truth of the cases - and despite the unequivocal admission of the truth of the story, went on dismissing it as the meaningless Duckspeak of "Jacuzzi Case lawyer" - for two years, and is *still* doing so now-
No, this man is heart and soul of the Dark Side. Perhaps he will be redeemed - anything is possible, we must not write off even a Sith Lord or a cannibalistic mutant - but for the present we cannot give him quarter in combat, because he is a Loki who uses the appearance of cuteness and harmlessness, in his dweebish bowties and innofensive manner (the masculine counterpart of KParker's whole-grain smiling wholesomeness), to disarm those who have no compunction against fighting against the Coulters and "Savage" Whiners with all their power.
The reason I say he is BOTH Stupid and Evil, is that he continued to play up this meme, and still does. How out of touch with humanity do you have to be, to not realize how it will sound to every parent or caregiver who has ever taken a child to a public pool, to mock the lawyer who tackles the corporation that did nothing to fix its product, after twelve children had their intestines sucked out by it, as a self-serving and heartless vampire - thereby by default defending the corporations, implicitly but undeniably.
The best he has done to tweak it is to assert that Edwards should not have taken any money for his legal work, in that case - he should have done the case entirely pro bono, else he is no humanitarian. This might have more weight, if it didn't come from a flack of the Greed Party, but as it is, the faux-naivete of this "idealistic" statement is further compounded by his assertion that Edwards took the money "from the little girl" - again, either he's ignorant or he's lying, but if he can't be bothered to do his homework before spouting off on national TV, it doesn't really matter, does it, *why* he's being deceitful, it comes to the same conscienceless servility.
Remember the cute little cherub-creatures in Galaxy Quest?
Now put a bow-tie on one of them.
Now I don't watch television (no reception) & haven't for years, so TV personae aren't really as present to me as people who write a lot. "Tweety" (Chris Matthews) and the other morning and evening interview show names don't mean much to me, for this reason, that I just can't place most of them. What got me fired up was a supposedly-intelligent media spokesperson defending the "case for torture" - and on PBS mind you, which I used to watch when I did have TV access, a lot.
However, at the time, in various venues I ranted about this, and was told (not just me of course) by sundry posters that oh, Tucker wasn't so bad, not compared to the Limbutts and Hannitys and Coulters, he was a reasonable and moderate person like George Will, why look he changed his mind on the war, so he was just trying to be fair/balanced/openminded etc. I didn't change my mind on him, though. I just wondered, as I always wonder when contemplating this kind of thing.
Now, the question when you have someone supposed to be a savvy pundit type, defending the indefensible, is always posed in an either or, but of the inclusive not the exclusive or sort. Is X Evil? or Is X Merely Stupid? Or is X Evil AND Stupid?
The answer, now demonstrated amply by poster Hunter over at dKos, is that Tucker Carlson is both Evil and Stupid. The story is so horrific, I apologize, but I cannot do anything about the wretchedness of this world, nor about the vileness of such humans as Carlson.
Featherless gods, but if there was ever one reason to vote *for* someone, this is it. True, we should not be surprised to hear this from the Party which has made so much capital from its spokesghouls on the meme of "frivolous lawsuits," managing to capitalize on scorn for the weak/stupid, misogyny, and fiscal envy all in the one mendacious package of the "coffee-spill" story. (If it had been phrased by Limbutt and his minions as "an elderly grandmother received third degree burns and required skin-grafts to her groin due to scalds following repeated violations of safety regulations by MacDonalds," instead of "a woman sued after she was burned spilling coffee on her lap," the world would be a different place today. Sincerest thanks, dear Dittoheads, from your master Sharkey-)
But that Carlson knew, knew the truth of the cases - and despite the unequivocal admission of the truth of the story, went on dismissing it as the meaningless Duckspeak of "Jacuzzi Case lawyer" - for two years, and is *still* doing so now-
No, this man is heart and soul of the Dark Side. Perhaps he will be redeemed - anything is possible, we must not write off even a Sith Lord or a cannibalistic mutant - but for the present we cannot give him quarter in combat, because he is a Loki who uses the appearance of cuteness and harmlessness, in his dweebish bowties and innofensive manner (the masculine counterpart of KParker's whole-grain smiling wholesomeness), to disarm those who have no compunction against fighting against the Coulters and "Savage" Whiners with all their power.
The reason I say he is BOTH Stupid and Evil, is that he continued to play up this meme, and still does. How out of touch with humanity do you have to be, to not realize how it will sound to every parent or caregiver who has ever taken a child to a public pool, to mock the lawyer who tackles the corporation that did nothing to fix its product, after twelve children had their intestines sucked out by it, as a self-serving and heartless vampire - thereby by default defending the corporations, implicitly but undeniably.
The best he has done to tweak it is to assert that Edwards should not have taken any money for his legal work, in that case - he should have done the case entirely pro bono, else he is no humanitarian. This might have more weight, if it didn't come from a flack of the Greed Party, but as it is, the faux-naivete of this "idealistic" statement is further compounded by his assertion that Edwards took the money "from the little girl" - again, either he's ignorant or he's lying, but if he can't be bothered to do his homework before spouting off on national TV, it doesn't really matter, does it, *why* he's being deceitful, it comes to the same conscienceless servility.
Remember the cute little cherub-creatures in Galaxy Quest?
Now put a bow-tie on one of them.