Dirty Deeds

Cyanide. Contracts. Neckties. HIGH VOLTAGE! Done dirt cheap. Punchline first: Tucker Carlson has had a humble blogger fired for blogging about seeing him one day.

tuckwad.jpg

We will let our readers decide whether the above childish, immature photoshop is in any way warranted. All details after the jump.

UPDATE:
Freedom Camp weighs in.
UPDATE II:
Clif’s take here.

We are forced to discuss something deeply distasteful. Something that, if it weren’t so puerile and ridiculous, would be fodder for a somewhat enjoyable half-ass laugh.

We speak of course of noted television grade Q conservative android, Tucker Carlson, and how he crossed paths with noted internet genius, Chuckles, and how Tucker threatened to sue the employer of said Genius, causing the Genius to be tossed into the street, like so much used up wang.

Our debacle started when Chuckles happened to serve, in his role as movie store clerk, Tucker Carlson. Chuckles posted about it here, somewhat humorously. We will concede that Chuckwagon is not everyone’s cup of tea. Let us examine with fresh eyes the offending post:

Chuckles begins:

Not as Recognizable as You Might Think Mr. Carlson

From WIKIPEDAIA [sic]:
Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson (born May 16, 1969 in San Francisco, California) is a pundit who currently hosts Tucker, a national television news show, which is broadcast weekdays at 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. ET on MSNBC.

Carlson is generally considered one of the most recognizable conservative media personalties on American television.

Certainly harmless enough, the posting of some personal info from a highly trafficked publicly-edited database. Perhaps this information is incorrect, and Mr. Carlson has taken offense to a possible mangling of his name or his birthday (beware the Ides of May!, or thereabouts). However, I don’t think we can score a point for TC, as this information, whether true or not. is merely a rhetorical device to introduce Mr. Carlson to the readers of Freelance Genius. I would add that we have no evidence of said information being prevented as definitely true, or of bad faith on Chuckles’s part regarding said information. I find Chuckles’s statement to be adequate in presenting the information.

Continuing:

Tucker Carlson opened an account last night at my video store. I thought the name seemed familiar but I couldn’t figure out why. It was after he left that I realized he was on the list of Gigantic Cobagz.

We have no evidence, other than Chuckles’s word that any of this happened at all. In fact, in this entire business we have to take Chuckles’s word into account regarding these proceedings. This could be taken in Mr. Carlson’s favor, however, given the actual words that Chuckles has posted on the internets, we will at least be able to conclude whether Mr. Carlson’s asserted behavior is consistent with the provocations allegedly asserted by him. For the statement above, it seems that a reading would indicate that Tucker Carlson did enter an unnamed video store within the District of Columbia or environs, and did interact with Chuckles in Chuckles’s professional capacity. Chuckles, being familiar at some unstated level with Mr. Carlson’s oeuvre, presumably political, but possibly ballroom dance, declares him to be on some list of “Gigantic Cobagz.” I have used the Google search function to identify this “list” but am forced to conclude that this list is either not readily available on the internet, or it is in fact mythical. I think it would be fair to presume that this list is a rhetorical device to describe something about Mr. Carlson’s persona (i.e. his Cobagz) as exceptionally large.

I could tell you what he and his ridiculously wasped-out female companion (wife?) rented if you really want to know. I won’t tell you where he lives, though. That would be wrong and stupid. I will also not be running around ordering 10,000 copies of America: The Book and having it sent to his place even if that would be more awesome than frozen urine treats for his home.

Chuckles then, on the surface, appears to discuss a possible breach of his professional ethics by discussing the possibility of revealing the movie/movies rented by Mr. Carlson and his companion, although it is not discussed whether Mr. Carlson’s companion was party to the transaction or merely a bystander.

Let us examine Chuckles’s statement more closely. Chuckles states that he “could” divulge to persons unknown what Mr. Carlson had rented. I find this to be plausible, because, regardless of any ethical considerations placed upon Chuckles as a store clerk, he certainly retains the ability to discuss what Mr. Carlson rented. I will add that Chuckles then specifically states what information about Mr. Carlson would not be divulged. This information is Mr. Carlson’s home address. I would grant that it is possible that Mr. Carlson would take this as some sort of implied threat, a mere discussion of having access to someone’s personal information. However, if we examine the context, we find such a response is not warranted. First, Chuckles himself provides two arguments against the release of such information. He gives reasons for not doing so as that it would be “wrong” (an ethical argument) and “stupid” (a utilitarian argument). I would further assert that Chuckles’s possession of said information is implicit in his job description as movie clerk, and need not even be stated, thus I would argue that there is nothing here to solicit extreme ill will.

Chuckles also goes on to discuss Mr. Carlson’s “ridiculously wasped-out female companion (wife?).” I find this statement to be slightly unfair of Chuckles, and possibly bearing a taint of misogyny, however I would like to also chide Chuckles for his rampant speculation. Chuckles speculates that this woman is Mr. Carlson’s wife. I find there to be no evidence for this speculation and that it is possibly unfair. This woman could be Mr. Carlson’s sister, a close acquaintance, a person in Mr. Carlson’s Van Pool having stopped with him on their rides to separate homes, and finally, Mr. Carlson’s platonic movie club buddy. As for her “ridiculously wasped-out” look, we cannot comment as we have not viewed this person. I would add that Tucker Carlson is noted for his WASP-esque throwback “bowtie” and sport jacket look. This look is part of his personal marketing and it would not be unsurprising if he surrounded himself with aesthetically similar personages.

Finally, we have the discussion of more things presented as contrary to fact, future, in that Chuckles “will also not be running around ordering 10,000 copies of America: The Book and having it sent to his place even if that would be more awesome than frozen urine treats for his home.” It is asserted that these events will not be happening in the future. Can these events be taken as threatening? Let’s examine them more closely. 10,000 of these books would cost Chuckles ~165,000 dollars. If he were to buy them and have them delivered, it is difficult to conceive of how such a thing might be threatening. We have learned, however, that “difficult to conceive” and “impossible to conceive” are different things, and should not be confused. Therefore, I have also calculated the weight of 10,000 books at 1.5 pounds per hardcover copy as 15,000 pounds, and this is more than enough to bury Mr. Carlson and his loved ones, and most likely cause them to be harmed in some way. It is possible but not logical that Mr. Carlson immediately feared for his safety upon it being suggested that such an event would not occur. Also included in events that will not occur, but is stated as “awesome,” is a mention of “frozen urine treats” for Mr. Carlson’s home. There is not enough context to decipher what such a statement means, and it is unclear whether the stated fact that the books would not be delivered, even though such an event would be more awesome than “frozen urine treats,” suggests that the “frozen urine treats,” in contrast to the books, would be delivered. We will assume that such “treats” are referred to as such sarcastically, but have no evidence of an explicit plan for their implementation.

Let us now examine Mr. Carlson’s response to the above, as described by Chuckles, in regards to the only information we know for a fact that he received, the post above.

Compare what I wrote to this absolutely true exchange from Friday night when you marched into the store:

Tucker: If you keep this shit up, I will fucking destroy you.
The Genius (Me): Whoah, perhaps you would like to take this outside where you can continue threatening me without disturbing the other customers.
Tucker: *Looks out the window, then back at me* I am not threatening you.
The Genius: You just said you would fucking destroy me.
Tucker: No, I didn’t.

If we are to take this at face value, we are forced to ponder what could have Mr. Carlson enraged so as to specifically reenter the video store in question, for the sole purpose of confronting Chuckles (Chuckles has informed us through back-channel communication that Mr. Carlson did not rent a video on this occasion). Is it the discussion of his personal information? Well, Chuckles, myself and the rest of the humans on earth possess unspoken access to millions of peoples’ personal information, in the form of phonebooks and Zabasearch. Even Wikipedia discusses the Carlson family’s interest in purchasing a 4 million dollar home, and we have found that the Washington Post presented similar gossip here:

Surreal Estate

Buyer: Tucker and Susan Carlson

Listing price: $ 3,995,000

Details : The host of MSNBC’s “The Situation With Tucker Carlson” is bringing his show to Washington and will soon close on a 1939 fieldstone colonial in the Palisades. The couple made a killing last year when they sold their Alexandria home and moved to New Jersey for the show’s launch; now they’re moving their four kids into a six-bedroom, 7 1/2- bath home with a huge family room, back yard and heated pool.

Are Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts, authors of the post piece, to be threatened with losing their jobs for the disclosure of Mr. Carlson’s personal information? It is to be presumed that they have access to more than just the description of the real estate, and know the address in question, thus are equally guilty of Chuckles’s crime. I would add that their discussion of Mr. Carlson’s possible home and neighborhood took place in the much more widely read than Freelance Genius Washington Post. Would Mr. Carlson claim that he has more knowledge about the intent of these individuals that he has for Chuckles’s intentions? He has Chuckles’s entire blog at his disposal to form a view of his character. Even if we consider Chuckles’s constant blog descriptions of his “wang” as “massive,” are we left with any evidence of nefarious intent? Nefarious intent, I would add, that go against the entirety of his stated positions.

Finally, we have the denouement of this situation. Mr. Carlson allegedly contacts the video store with threats of a lawsuit.

It is up to you, dear readers, to determine whether these actions appear to be warranted, or actionable on any level. We are serene in our analysis.

Verdict:

Mr. Tucker Carlson: Notorious L.O.W.

Chuckles: Innocent!

Freedom Camp weighs in.

38 Responses to “Dirty Deeds”


Leave a Reply


8 − = one

What is 23 + 86 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
MATH IT UP, FUZZBALL