When I criticized the New York Times in my last column, that really, really, really ticked off the Random Pixels blogger.
Not only did he blast me in the comment section of my own blog, but he went on a mad rampage attacking me on his website and in a barrage of insults on Twitter.
Apparently, the article about the “amphibious” pitcher was not published in the New York Times, but in the East Oregonian.
OKAY? ARE WE FREAKING CLEAR ON THAT?
Random Pixels obviously, and very deliberately, missed the entire point of the blog. But was my mistake that freaking egregious?
It’s not as if I used a personal email server to conduct official State Department business from my home, and then deleted my emails to avoid Federal records laws.
I didn’t even form a tax-free charitable foundation to accept foreign donations in exchange for influencing State Department policies.
And I certainly didn’t aid and abet the sale of uranium to Russia!
So what could I have possibly done incur such wrath?
Apparently, because I mistakenly claimed that the newspaper blooper was published in the New York Times (even though I read it on the internet, so it MUST be true!*), Random Pixels completely disregarded the rest of my post and tried to make that the entire point. (*Note: That was #SARCASM!)
He started his unrelenting blitzkrieg by calling me a racist because – get this – I DIDN’T CORRECT MY POST!
It only got worse from there.
He started blasting me on Twitter and demanding I publish a correction. When I tweeted back to him that I figured he already did that for me, he responded with “If you post bogus shit, it’s YOUR job to correct it. That way your “readership” can see what a fraud you are.”
Okay, so now I’m a racist AND a fraud.
I’m a “nutty right-wing blogger,” an “imbecile” and I have zero readership.
After spewing his venom at me on Twitter, he then blocked me from his account.
That was freaking weird.
I certainly hope he feels better now.
If the headline I incorrectly credited to the New York Times were the point of the blog, it would have been a gross misrepresentation of the truth. I included it because I thought it was funny as hell. Even without that lede, the rest of the blog would still have been written.
Judging by Random Pixels’ reaction, however, I may as well have committed capital murder!
With one rare exception a few years back, I have not attacked other bloggers. At the very least, I consider it a “professional” courtesy to keep any negative opinions to myself. I have the utmost respect for other bloggers, especially local ones, many of whom I consider my mentors. I had even put Random Pixels at the top of that list.
You might be asking what I ever did to this dude to warrant such a vicious attack?
If anything, I’ve always been extremely deferential to Random Pixels, even to the point of being ingratiating. In fact, one of my closest friends once asked, “What’s with your fawning over Random Pixels all the time? Just stop!”
I guess no good deed really does go unpunished.
In any event, although the funny headline is not to be credited to the New York Times (which publication is apparently as humor challenged as Random Pixels), I stand by my original opinion that Marco Rubio was unfairly and unnecessarily attacked. I also stand by my opinion that he’s being targeted because of all the Republican contenders, he poses the biggest threat to Democrats.
Even stranger than the New York Times’ exposes of Rubio’s four <GASP> traffic tickets and his “spendthrift” ways, is that the NYT posted a picture of his home in West Miami.
This morning, the caption under the photo inferred that Marco’s “mansion” was the most lavish house in the entire neighborhood.
(You’ll just have to take my word for that. Even though Random Pixels would probably call me a liar.)
Anyone who lives in the Miami area would agree that Rubio’s house is hardly a “mansion.” In fact, it’s not much bigger than the guest houses of real South Florida mansions.
The New York Times quoted Marco Rubio as saying, “I’m not poor, but I’m not rich, either.”
On the contrary, the Clintons, who allegedly made over $160 million since leaving the White House, claimed to be “dead broke” last year. I wonder if the New York Times criticized Hillary for her “financial troubles.”
Or if they published a picture of her humble abode in Chappaqua, New York.
Across the pond, however, last year the Daily Mail noted that the Clintons were “slumming it” and “downsizing” by only paying $100,000.00 to rent their summer home as opposed to the $200,000.00 they usually shell out.
Now that’s a ride!
And let’s also not forget Marco Rubio’s “luxury speedboat.”
Here’s a photo of Marco’s $80,000.00 off shore fishing boat as advertised by the manufacturer.
In the interest of avoiding any further wrath of Random Pixels, let me clarify for the record that I have nothing against wealth or the wealthy. I do not disparage people for wanting to make money or, even more importantly, wanting to spend it.
On anything they want!
Good for them!
My beef is with the mainstream news media, which is supposed to be unbiased and nonpartisan, but never is.
Bloggers, on the other hand, are not reporters. We’re supposed to have opinions. Why else would we do this?
This is not the first time Random Pixels has criticized me. Sometimes it’s justified, other times not.
But when he attacked me so viciously for something so inconsequential, I was literally stunned.
In this instance, I did make a mistake. I admit I incorrectly credited the New York Times with a funny story.
They don’t do funny. I get it. I take it back.
My sincere apologies!
I do not, however, apologize for the point I was making in the first place. The decidedly unfunny New York Times unfairly and continuously attacks Marco Rubio for the most ridiculous of reasons, while giving a pass to certain other politicians who do much worse.
Obviously, Marco’s biggest “problem” is that he’s a Republican.
Even more obviously, where Random Pixels is concerned, it’s also mine.
“Spreading the Wealth”