Flaming Asshole Award Reassigned

It turns out that Daniel Watts is the likely victim here and the flaming ass is the Associated Press. Daniel commented and emailed regarding his treatment by the press:

As I learned during the gubernatorial race, the media has a tendency to take everything I say out of context.



Some of the articles have misquoted me as saying that the video "is not a big deal."



It IS a big deal. Anyone dying in Iraq is a big deal. What the media blew out of proportion was the attempted showing of the Nick Berg video on Library Walk on Tuesday (by another student, not me); the video wasn't even shown, but the media hung out for 2 hours to interview the guy.



There are multiple reasons to show the video. The main one is that photos of Iraqi prisoner abuse have been plastered all over the newspapers and Internet, but the media have not gone to similar lengths to try to give the same attention to an even worse crime committed AGAINST Americans. The media's coverage of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse is slanted; they will show graphic photos of prisoners being mauled, humiliated, etc. but they won't show even worse atrocities committed by the terrorists.



I'm sorry the story you read portrayed me unfairly. If I've learned anything it's that the media selectively choose what to include in their stories.



Sincerely,

Daniel Watts

Thusly it is that the Flaming Asshole Trophy is reclaimed from Daniel Watts and bestowed instead upon the Associated Press, long may their gasseous discharges burn.

more...

Posted by: Jim at 07:57 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 679 words, total size 4 kb.

What do you call it when a blogger leads off a series with a targeted attack on another blogger and then closes the comments on the post? I call it bullshit. This particular pile of bullshit was birthed by Mrs. du Toit. She leads off a multi-post essay with this gem:

In a comment thread regarding domestic violence I was taken to task for referring to myself as "Mrs du Toit" by (what I would refer to as) a Femi-Nazi. She made some comment that she had a name and was proud to use it, and she'd never refer to herself the way I do.

The comment thread in question was at my place. Mrs. du Toit had commented that there is no such thing as Stockholm Syndrome and that women in abusive relationships are there solely because they want to be. Helen took her to task, this being the "some comment" referred to above:

And Dean? Yeah, I don't read you, and I really don't feel the need to, either. You've been there on the man's side? Well, I've been there on the woman's side. And you and Mrs. Du Toit (again, let me state thus: I find it revolting to be referred to by my spouse's name. I have my own name, thank you) should understand this: if you haven't walked the woman's side, then you just don't understand.

So what is it, Mrs. du Toit? Any woman who has been abused is a feminazi? Any woman who disagrees with you? Any woman who wants to be known by her own name instead of her husband's? What exactly is your label of "feminazi" a result of? One thing we can be sure of is that it is in no way related to any knowledge of Helen that you might have because if you had taken even a few moments to get to know her before spitting out your vitriol you would know that she's quite the opposite.

Frankly the moral equivalence necessary to use a term like "feminazi" in the first place is disgusting. Your casual attack on somebody you know nothing about simply because they disagree with you is reprehensible.

Bullshit, Connie. Absolute bullshit.

Incidentally, this is for you:

Posted by: Jim at 06:52 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 2 kb.