One of the more hypocritically hilarious comments after the Boston bombings yesterday was uttered by Sold-by-Al Gore-to-Aljazeera Current TV's Cenk Uygur, one of the so-called "Young Turks." Cenk thinks there's a double standard when it comes to labeling and terrorism situations:
Now, keep it real. If it's somebody who is a Muslim terrorist, people are going to say, 'I knew it! Muslim terrorism is [inaudibe]! We have to go, we have to invade countries, etc.'
Now, if it's a right-wing white guy, those same exact people will turn around and say, 'Well, look, let's not over blow this. I mean it's just one crazy guy, he doesn't affect anything else. It has no other implications, let's just all calm down.'
You could call this "living in the bubble," too. (Speaking of which, our beloved Dan "Set the Record Straight" Slott sent out this Tweet this morning:
Just saw a FOX affiliate compare yesterday's bombs as "reminiscent of what we've seen in Kabul." Way to link this to the Middle East, Fox.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) April 16, 2013
So happy you helped make my point, sir.) Because it's so laughably sanctimonious as to defy description. Our own federal government is loathe to refer to an instance like Boston as "terrorism," let alone any possible Muslim involvement. But more ridiculously, it is Uygur's own profession which lectures us to withhold accusations -- when it comes to Muslims -- and constantly reminds us about the difference between mainstream Islam and radical Islam; however, as evidenced by last night (and myriad other instances), these exact same 4th Estaters have absolutely no qualms about doing what Uygur bitches about what "those same exact people" would do in his quote above. That is, speculate about [white] right-wing extremists being involved.
Look, of course there are hypocrites on both sides when it comes to stuff like this. However, it's supposedly the "report-the-facts" MSM that makes a [self] mockery of things when guys like Uygur utter buffoonery like the above. This sort of ideological nonsense is not only evident when it comes to reporting (or lack thereof) on our current president's brazen hypocrisy and lies, and it takes me back to the election 2000 debacle in Florida. The MSM was apoplectic that the conservative bloc of the SCOTUS would "betray" its usual ideology by invoking a federal remedy to the situation (canceling the full state recount due to the fact that they'd never get it done by, y'know, when the Constitution says it has to be done, not to mention previously finding 14th Amendment equal protection violations due to differing vote counting standards); however, they never seemed to notice the liberal bloc on the high court suddenly became pals of states' rights -- "betraying" their usual ideology -- by wanting to leave the entire matter ultimately in the hands of the Florida Supreme Court!
We all know how the MSM viewed the final SCOTUS verdict; imagine if the liberals were the majority on the court at the time: "Brilliant decision," they'd say. "A victory for democracy." "This court is a positive force for good in America." Etc.
UPDATE: Dan "Set the Record Straight" Slott Tweeted back to me much later today after our brief morning back and forth (and apparently he had read this post) and was miffed that I also did not note (in this post) his retweets about NPR, Good Morning America and the Today Show doing what he said Fox did above. He accused me of not being fair; my response was that -- get this -- I actually had to go to work, which means I didn't see his retweets. I said I would be glad to add an update to this post indicating what he said/retweeted.
Of course, this supposed "balance" on Slott's part doesn't take anything away from the fact that he believes Fox News has no equal when it comes to "sleaze." A fact he reiterated this afternoon. So, after I asked Dan if he would quantify his belief about Fox "having no equal" when it comes to sleaze, Slott ... went silent. And then he blocked me from following him. It's almost as funny as it's all-too typical. Hide in that bubble, Danny boy.
But I did what I said I would, Slott. I updated this post with what you wanted. I am fair. Unlike that mainstream media you apparently believe is so much more so than that dastardly FNC.
UPDATE 2: Slott apparently has read this post, and seems to have either a comprehension problem, a reading problem, or is just plain full of sh**. Note he claims I "took him out of context," which, of course, I didn't. Just like he says about himself in the link above, I too have a job. Am I supposed to catch every retweet you make, Dan? After all, retweets have the pic and name of the original person who made the Tweet on them, with only a small text at the bottom which notes who retweeted it. Thus, even if I was looking, it's easy to miss.
And "scoring points" on a blog? That's why I do it? Who's keeping score, Dan? For whom do I work? Please tell me. What a laugh! Here's why I write here, Dan: Because I like to write. I also like comics and politics. But I don't like what contemporary creators like yourself have helped to do to many of the characters and mythos that I love and grew up with. Again, you live in a bubble where everyone agrees with each other, and you all pat yourselves on the back. And when someone disagrees with you, you get upset. Spare me that you have conservative friends with whom you chat regularly. If they disagree too harshly with you, you probably do just what you did with me and Doug Ernst: You go off on some BS tangent and make excuses about "context," fairness, and whatever else you think you can get away with. Because, after all, you have legions of LIV fanboys who'll follow your every word.
Look, you already said you think Fox News has "no equal" when it comes to sleaze, so it was a perfectly reasonable thing I did when I used that Tweet from you about Fox ... even without your supposed retweets about other news orgs. So, instead of moaning, crying, and acting like an irrational hypocritical baby, why don't you man up and at least attempt to prove your nonsense about Fox (and Antonin Scalia, for that matter, from above)? As someone Tweeted to you yesterday, if you Tweet about politics, you should expect some push-back. And you should also not expect, because of your "elevated" position, people to sit around and wait to see if you Tweet some more just so they can see if you'll be "balanced."
Lastly, why do you care so much about what I, and others, say, Dan? I know, but I really am curious as to your thought process. But here, I clue you in: I'm just a guy with an opinion. But blogs and the Internet have given folks like me an actual voice now, a voice that other fans can read -- without the editors at Marvel deciding what letters get printed. And you really don't like that. It's very simple.Posted by Hube at April 16, 2013 01:57 PM | TrackBack