Crossfired!

The Story (Abridged Version):

  • Chuckles meets Tucker Carlson.
  • Chuckles blogs Tucker Carlson.
  • Tucker Carlson throws tantrum.
  • Chuckles loses job.

The Story (Full Version): Prelude and Fugue

Well, it looks like Pinko has done the heavy lifting in analyzing this exercise in pique from Dances With Bowtie (the quantity of lifting being all the more impressive in that he did not even have to move Chuckles’s wang — plus he works dirt cheap), but I thought I would add my comments on the situation. (Others attempts to plumb the depths of Tucker Carlson’s shallowness: teh l4m3, Clif.)

Without more detail as to what Tucker said, it’s hard to know what he was really thinking. Was there some specific part of Chuckles’s post that caused this reaction? Or was it the cumulative combination of a package mentioning his address, frozen urine treats, and NAMBLA? (That last being in comments.) Was he perhaps worried that Chuckles was trolling for a tabloid that might want to pay him for a list of Tucker’s rental choices — especially if he was renting Debby Does Dalmatians IX: Sore Spots or something? Though how stupid you’d have to be to rent that kind of thing under your own name when you’re a TV personality is fairly unfathomable. (I mean you just know there’s some outfit with a name like “Home Solutions, Inc.” that provides porn to celebrities with guaranteed confidentiality. At some mysteriously defined point, a star receives the HS business card from their agent — who never finds out if it gets used — and no one ever asks anyone else if they’ve heard of it. Plus, their materials are so non-descript, you could find their DVD’s in someone else’s house and not know that’s what they were, even if you had been ordering them yourself.)

How many childish taunts have been written about Tucker on the internet? (Not to mention that he’s had the special distinction of having been called a “dick” on national television — a moment also enshrined on the internet.) How difficult, really, would it be to find out his address? Plus: how easy would it be for some joker in Vladivostok to claim that Tucker Carlson came into his video store? (I’d make a joke here about me working at his pharmacy or hairdresser or something, except I don’t want some poor soul to get fired if he takes it seriously — given that, fortunately, I have never encountered the guy without the blessed intermediary of a video screen.)

I seriously doubt he has a legal leg to stand on — which, of course, doesn’t prevent him from making life miserable (and expensive) for the video store.

And what harm does Tucker think Chuckles’s post could cause him that isn’t caused by thousands of others, including many by much more prominent people like Wolcott? Does he really see it as a veiled threat? Even after saying that releasing his address would be “wrong and stupid”? How difficult would it be to dig up way scarier obsessional drool on any number of other celebrities? Given what celebrities say about their fan mail, most (if not all) of them get far more sick — and more credibly threatening — letters every week. Is this just right wing paranoia? I suspect it would be illuminating to find out what antics his fear-laden brain has gone through on this as it would unsurprising if it showed just how disconnected from reality he is. It would also be interesting to know whether that disconnection might derive most from his privileged background, the conservative victim mentality, or his big media cocoon.

About the only thing that I can think of as coming close to suggesting a threat is the line: “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.” In the right light, if you stand back far enough and squint a lot, you might be able to interpret that as implying that “frozen urine treats” would be winging their way to Tucker’s doorstep, as in: why send a truckload of Jon Stewart when peeing in an ice cube tray is so much cheaper and the margin of awesomeness so small? Though even if that interpretation had occurred to Tucker — and he found it plausible (!) — the distinct non-entry into his life of whizzsicles in the time since the post was made might have told him something.

Could he be concerned that a google search for “tucker carlson nambla” will turn up a hit? News flash: it gets 1200 — including at least one from his own show. And it’s not like conservatives haven’t been inviting teh tacky jokes given the number of sexual predators (pedophilic and otherwise) they elect and appoint, not to mention their obsession with NAMBLA. Does he not pay any attention to the media he works for?

The most serious detail in the post is perhaps AG’s suggestion in comments to troll for kids and give out Tucker’s number. However, there isn’t the remotest suggestion that anyone would seriously consider doing this.

Should Chuckles have just kept his mouth shut? Possibly. But when a well known person patronizes someone’s place of work, that person is pretty likely to tell their friends about it. Anyone obsessive enough to derive any meaningful information from Chuckles’s post probably didn’t need the post to find that information.

So, what was the real trigger? Did some random detail hit close to home? The dude can’t possibly track down and threaten everyone who says something stupid about him online.

So, Mr. Tucker Carlson: If this isn’t just you throwing a hissy ’cause you can, you should let people know exactly what your beef is. If there’s some real issue here we’re missing, we want to know. We live in the real world where a lot of people actually give a shit about causing real damage to other people’s lives — even for undeserving twerps like you. However, if the problem here is you can’t take a joke, or you think we’re “uncivil”, or you get some kind of satisfaction from kicking around some poor shmoe working in a video store, then you’re just being an arrogant asshole, and deserve everything you get, as you have, yourself, now done real damage to someone’s life. Also, swatting an unknown blogger and getting that person fired is pretty stupid as all their friends start writing about the incident, or they start shouting about it on DailyKos — and pretty soon thousands of people have another reason for thinking you a petty, vindictive bully, instead of a dozen people thinking you have a video account.

* * *

On a somewhat related note: another blogger battlin’ Da Man. (Continued: 1, 2, 3)

37 Responses to “Crossfired!”


  • Plover, that was a really even handed post about the whole subject. I appreciate it more than this comment will show. Thanks.

  • Too many hamsters clogged the tubes. Freelance Genius, WRN, and all of blogger seems to be down.

    What unfortunate timing ….

    Is Tucker to blame?

  • Tucker has his finger on the Destroy Blogger button, and he’s got an itch.

  • Tucker, being the complete overprivileged douchemuncher of a ruling class apologist that he is, was looking for someone powerless to kick, probably because he couldn’t seal the deal with the incredibly WASP-ed woman, even after Chuckles aid in renting the (presumably) first feature in the evening’s entertainment.

    Just a prime example of the disdain with which the Ruling Class and Beltway TV Nitwits view us normal fuckin people. Punching bags to be used whenever the rage boils over.

    I’m sure when Tucker was a kid, and his mom wouldn’t give him ANOTHER Hostess Snowball to eat, even after he’d had three, that he would go out and find a stray cat to kick, or a dog to light on fire.

    Sack up, Carlson. Be a man. Admit your failures. Don’t take them out on some poor minimum wage Everyman who happens to cross your path.

    Tool Choodmuncher. With a Bowtie.

  • “We live in the real world where a lot of people actually give a shit about causing real damage to other people’s lives — even for undeserving twerps like you. However, if the problem here is you can’t take a joke, or you think we’re “uncivil”, or you get some kind of satisfaction from kicking around some poor shmoe working in a video store, then you’re just being an arrogant asshole, and deserve everything you get, as you have, yourself, now done real damage to someone’s life.”

    Beautiful.

  • Totally uninformed guess as to why Tucker got so disproportionately bent out of shape: the wasped-out woman was not Susan… Is it irresponsible to speculate? Friends, it would be irresponsible not to.

  • Tiger, AG may or may not have suggested the same thing.

  • This is why I discussed the possibility that the individual was in fact his sister and or movie club/van pool buddy.

  • Four Bow-Tied Figures of the past twenty years or so…George Will, Tucker Carlson, Louis Farrakhan, and Orville Redenbacher. Is it the tie or the man?

  • …or movie club/van pool buddy.

    :)

    Stupid idiot. I’m never watching his show again. I will only watch The Chuckles Show from now on.

  • Zounds, people, sorry for any thunder-stealing related activity on my part. If Tucker finds out he will surely storm into my living room and have me fired from commenting.

    On the matter at hand, AG, do you know the Guiness record book people, too? Because Tuck Ever-harassing may have shown himself to be the world’s biggest cobag here, and someone needs to be notified. Ooh, and maybe I should call the CDC guy I know and warn him about the E. coli danger such a free-roaming cobag presents to public health. Safety first!

  • Would Ann Althouse wear a bow tie if she were a man?

    Comment and discuss.

  • t- were you able to find the mythical “Gigantic Cobagz” list? What an awesome list that must be.

  • Remember: It may often seem simple, and you may think you know what is being said, but that is a trap for the unwary. I’m starting a discussion here, often with questions and elision.

  • I think it’s obvious from the context that the WASP-y lady is Tucker’s Bible study-buddy. And perhaps felching partner.

    PS: http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/doc/rnr/259932865.html

  • Yes, I found it, but it was an older one: Tucker wasn’t at the top, but was under Pinochet, Nixon, and Kissinger, who are now all dead.

    And don’t tell me you didn’t know deep in your heart that Special K was a zombie.

  • Follow Teh’s link if you dare.

  • Everyone knows Tucker from “The E! True Hollywood Story Tucker Carlson – Anatomy of a Cobag.” You’d think he’d be a lot more upset about that.

  • Why, yes waiter, I’ll have the Tuck a l’orange.

  • Tuck’s medicated pads- apply to hemorrhoids.

  • Incidentally, I will no longer be posting as TC- it’s too shameful.

    Post on this at my joint momentarily. As soon as Blogger stops sucking.

  • If he hadn’t proven a hundred times over that he was always such a douchebag, I’d suspect that Tucker was simply jealous that we got the coveted Time’s Person of the Year award instead of him.

  • Always the bridesmaid, never the bride!

  • Great.

    Now I’ve got a mental image of Tucker Carlson wearing a bridesmaid’s gown.

  • Has anyone considered whether, if the woman was Tucker’s wife, he’s actually upset about Chuckles’s description of her as a “wasped-out female companion”? That this may in fact be the Tucker Carlson equivalent of machismo? “Protectin’ the lil’ lady”, or some such BS?

    “My name is Tuckew S. Cawwson, patwiawch, I own a mansion and a yacht. You have thweatened my woman. Feaw my bowtie and my wawyew!!!1!”

    (Now, I just have to worry about whether anyone will still respect me after I’ve used “Tucker Carlson” and “machismo” in the same sentence.)

  • I covered a little bit of that in my x-thousand word screed. I decided that considering Mr. Carlson dresses like a prototypical WASPish elite, it would altogether be unsurprising that Biscuit, Bunny, Muffy, Binky, Muffin, Tubbins or whoever would be described as matching him aesthically.

    I also don’t question his “manhood”- manhood is a patriarchical concept. I question his humanity.

    I mean, it is formally possible that Tucker has a ginormous wang and Chuckles’s a sad, tiny one. We’re not in the business of wangs tonight, we are in the business of justice for the little, possibly endowed guy

  • I’m not questioning his “manhood” either — I’m questioning whether he’s motivated by such considerations. I.e. whether he thinks he’s defending his “honor” or his wife’s “honor” or some other antiquated piece of patriarchal wankery.

    Evidence so far indicates he’s chosen the role of unprincipled aristocratic bullyboy. I’m just questioning whether there’s more going on.

    This is a weird over-reaction. He gets ridiculed by random bloggers all the time. In some sense, he’s treating Chuckles like a real threat, rather than a fly to be brushed aside. The general categories of possibilty seem to be:

    1. he’s not just an insufferable jackass, but actually psychologically messed up
    2. that wasn’t his wife
    3. some personal issue was twigged by Chuckles’s post

    One possibility for 3) is plain old fashioned patriarchal dumbassery. Of course, another possibility is that he perceives Chuckles as the visible face of every “blogofascist” who ever wronged him.

  • I predict it is the proximity. This is an instance where he KNOWS the individual is somehow close by, but this must have been coupled to something else, because he clearly and almost willfully misconstrued the rest of the available evidence, so you are quite right, we are both struck by the perplexity of Chuckles becoming some sort of bogeyman for Tuckstick.

  • The Uncanny Canadian

    Do you think … is it possible … could Chuckles be The One who the prophesies say could take down the Tucker. Lo it has been many years, and the good people of middle Washington had almost but given up hope. Arise ye Chuckles and meet thy destiny!

  • TC quote from the September 26, 2003 Crossfire:

    Well, on yesterday’s program on telemarketing, some of you may have seen it. I jokingly gave out what I said was my home phone number. In fact, it was the main number of the Washington bureau of the Fox News Channel. I thought it was funny. Fox did not think it was funny. Apparently, many of our viewers called that number, hoping to speak to me. Instead, they reached a grouchy Fox switchboard operator. Well, to our viewers, I’m sorry I gave you that bad information, even in jest. Last night, Fox responded by posting on its Web site my unlisted home phone number, the phone number where my wife and four small children often answer the phone, as they did last night, during dinner, when the first of several hundred Fox viewers called to scream obscenities at them into the phone. Fox had every right to be annoyed by what I did, amusing as I thought it was. They had no right to invade my privacy or to enable their followers to threaten my family.

  • I keep getting startled by references to TC, and then realize that you mean Tuckamuck Carlson-of-an-emu, and move on…

    I thought it was apparent that Jon Stewart was The One. After all, that was when Crossfire was canceled and Tucker’s life became so dim and unfulfilling that he was forced to visit video stores like the rest of us proles.

    But as far as in depth analysis goes, I think it is a given that Ms. WASP was not, in fact, the same person as Mrs. Carlson (Tucker) and that not only was he afeard of having his peccadilloes exposed (Republicans will accept almost any deviancy (see Mark Foley) as long as you keep it under wraps) but since his willy DID NOT get dipped that night (pure guesswork on my part; but really, does someone who’s getting laid act like such a dick?) he is taking his pent-up frustrations out on the nearest person related to said non-success.

    Given all of the above, I feel sure that when leaving the video store, TC was playing “Tuck The Long Way Home”

  • BP,

    I am strongly against that line of reasoning, even though it would be ironic in several ways. I fully believe that this female person was Mrs. Carlson. In fact TC could have been annoyed by a possible implication that that the woman were not his wife (Chuckles’s querulous statement of “wife?”)

    Devil’s advocate for plover’s take:

    TC’s apology is the height of disingenuity. He comes out with an unpopular stance on telemarketing, lies to his viewers that he would more than welcome their calls, then plays the “family and dinner time” card when faced with calls derived from a fuse he lit by lying. This “family and dinner” ( obscenity) is essentially the usual argument against telemarketers, that people feel like their homes are being invaded. This very argument he essentially belittled when giving out his supposed home phone number, so in return for his callousness, he was met with unfortunate but understandable obscenity.

    However, if we grant that he is entirely unaware of his hypocrisy and that this event could have been perspective altering, we can then apply this filter to his views of Chuckles’s actions.

    There are three possibilities for avenues of threat:

    Direct from Chuckles. This is not supported by Tucker’s initial actions, which all revolved around Chuckles’s blogging actions- Tucker’s implication that C. ‘stop pulling this shit’ (paraphrase) and ‘take the post down’ paraphrase or “I will fucking destroy you” suggest that the actions he was targeting were Chuckles’s blogging and not Chuckles’s person. Later actions suggest that Chuckles’s person was targeted, but this is after the fact and has no bearing on the initial fram of mind. Now, TC’s fear could have been predicated on actions he feared would take place, but none of these actions had yet taken place, nor is it clear how attacking Chuckles’s blog or employment would mitigate those hypothetical actions.

    Indirect through Chuckles’s management of TC’s personal information. This seems somewhat plausible in TC targeting C’s employment as the employer bears the responsibility for the personal information. However this does not explain the initial contact was between TC and C. It is possible that TC was angry but felt the situation was not entirely threatening and felt he would vet it for himself (I add here, but cannot share, that details exist arguing TC could not truly have considered C a threat at all, or would show him to be quite foolish). After the initial interaction was unsatisfactory, although the demands had been met (the post was removed), TC entered into a stew of rage, and decided to hurt Chuckles’s in anyway possible. This argument goes to TC’s ego- if he truly felt C were a threat he would have handled many things differently and would have possibly involved the police, and Chuckles would have received the letter, perhaps care of the store owner. So I posit the initial reaction was due to a fear of indirect threat based on management of his personal info. The secondary reaction was due to bruised ego and I feel that TC will cloak both in a “family safety” argument.

    I think this was merely a situation based on TC’s bad temper- imagine if he rationally stated his concerns- knowing Chuckles’s he would have apologized and accommodated TC. While TC had no way of knowing this, the fact that he felt he could somewhat bargain with C in the first place (albeit with threats) and the bargaining was over blog posts, not hypothetical actions (although I believe C mentioned to me that TC did mention his wife and family during his tirafe), so it is hard to conclude that TC himself had a clear idea about what he was angry about. I think this also supports the bruised ego under the guise of being randomly insulted because of renting a movie. None of us wants to be randomly insulted renting a movie, worst of all is having all day to get mad about it.

    So, all actions are somewhat understandable, but perhaps TC never learned “Stop. Breathe. Think. Lest. You. Be. A. Cobag.”

  • ahh, well reasoned Pinko.

    But your entire logical train is based upon that simple idea-logic.

    As is so amply in evidence (not to mention proposed as a virtue by the guy who coined the ‘reality based’ phrase) logic and rationality is not the strong suit of the class which claims Tucker as their own.

    I think bad temper notwithstanding, the whole thing seems to have been ramped up by an unknown factor, lets call it “a” because the level of response, as well as the persistence, seems to far exceed any kind of level of threat, whether implicit or not. As you point out, any possible threats by Chuck were mild, at best, and exceeded by any number of other sources upon which one could rely for TC’s personal info, if one chose.

    So, as TC’s friend Peggy Noonan once so fabulously opined “Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible NOT to”.

  • Super true, bp, but I think the proximity of perceived threat time to stew no reflection could bring us where we are without some other Bridge partner.

    :)

  • I do not think Tuckbag’s actions are in anyway understandable. He is a public figure, he should seriously apologize to Chuckles and to Chuckle’s boss. Chuckles did NOTHING wrong.

    There is no excuse for getting him fired. None. It was a power trip and a disgusting one at that. His actions should be exposed to the world because I can’t see anyone, ANYONE, who would agree what he did was right.

    Pretty much period, IMHO.

  • Double-a- we’re trying to play devil’s advocate so we don’t accused of being an “echo chamber.” We want to know the facts, or if there are any extenuating circumstances (I did not say exonerating). I think Tuck should take Chuck to a nice steak dinner to apologize. And that is that. They should then shake hands for a photo-op, and Tuck should not secretly have Chuck poisoned, either.

  • Exuse me Dr. Punko, but how do you know she was Mrs. Carlson. She could be Dr. Carlson or Ms.Carlson.

    Let’s not have a repeat of the Dr. Karpova argument.

Leave a Reply


two × 8 =

What is 35 + 21 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
MATH IT UP, FUZZBALL