Some People Earn Their Infamy: Chuck Adkins, Terrible "Person"

A reader wanting to cheer me up sent me a link to this site, the horrors of which I don't want to plumb. 

But I will. 

I won't mention that the proprietor of The Populist Blog, "Chuck Adkins," purportedly lives in his parent's basement.  (No reason to put substance to the stereotype.)  Nor will I say anything about "his" decision to insult the recently deceased wife of someone he was arguing with.  (Why remind people of the niceties of online interaction?)  I'm not even going to discuss the remarkable sense of  self-importance necessary to address "everyone" when not a single post on any of his many blogs bears comments. 

I won't speak to any of that ... because I don't believe "Chuck Adkins" exists.  He's a fictional character, confabulated by irate conservatives in desperate need of a straw man.  How else could he embody the worst stereotypes of liberals and bloggers both? 

There's a reason everyone who links to his blog does so with rage in their heart and violence on their mind.  (As a future English professional, I see red every time he Capitalizes Words like a German.  I know he thinks it's "Sort of Bad news" that he "had to nuke the Blog," but if the news is "Bad" and the "Blog" is nuked, doesn't his illogic dictate the News of the Nuking also be capitalized?) 

Were Adkins an actual person, he would occasionally write something that didn't play into the conservative stereotype of vile liberals ... like voicing complaint against kicking welfare kittens for being cute, or demonstrating that Bush misled the country about the threat Saddam's chemical weapons program posed. 

Instead, Adkins always produces material like:

Two words asshole, fuck off.

Further More, what the fuck is it to you? I mean, if you don’t fucking like what you see here, don’t bother fucking coming here.

Update 2: Yeah, I took it off, I wouldn’t want little cry baby azzhat Mikey to cry himself silly, the bitch. Mother fucker lets his Co-Bloggers talk shit about other Blogs, But then WHINES when someone writes a little snark back.  WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Cry baby assed bitch.  I will forewarn you fucking asshole chickenhawks. THE VERY NEXT TIME, THAT MICHELLE MALKIN POSTS SOMETHING THAT *i* DON’T LIKE, I WILL POST HER REAL NAME, TELEPHONE NUMBERS, CREDIT CARD INFO AND SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, WITH SHOTS OF THE HOUSE FROM THE AIR. It’s okay for her to do shit, and say shit, but when I do it, I catch hell. BULLSHIT! Even if I have to PAY to get the info, I will get it. Bank on it, bitches.

Update:  Hello to all the readers from ColdFury! I’ve since posted a follow up, you might wanna read it. Like I said on that posting, if Mike wants to be a gentleman and pull the post insulting me, Fine, I’ll pull this one and the one linked. Otherwise, it stays. I’ve never said a THING about anyone over at Coldfury, ever. But yet, they’ll take pot shots at me, well, they should expect stuff to be said back. It all goes back to that “Every Action causes a reaction” kinda thing. Something that Mike and his gang of illiterate thugs just cannot seem to understand.

So I reach out to all the stalwart defenders of the really real, you who believe it your sacred duty to reveal all the truths squirreled away by liberal media ... I reach out to you and demand you prove that this "man" Adkins breathes breaths outside the confines of fertile conservative imaginations. 

Because I don't buy it.

(Note: Why was this supposed to cheer me up?)

Comments

[Chuck Adkins]

Hi There,

Yes, I am real.

Yes, I did make a mistake, and yes, I did apologize.

I just don't get it. These people act like they want me to hang myself to god damn cross.

I mean, I think it's blatant Hypocrisy if you ask me. Ann Coulter can call 9/11 victim widows "harpies" and say that their husbands were going to divorce them anyhow, which is about as bad, and the Conservatives don't mind. But let someone who's a little left than these people say something and people act like you committed the unpardonable sin.

People need to get grip and move on, I said I was sorry, But it just ain't good enough.

Oh well, too bad. I've got better things to do, than worry if some loser with Blog hates me or not. I'm learning drupal, could lead to some income for me.

I dunno what to tell them.

Ciao!

-Chuck

[Dan Collins]

Some sockpuppets have no capacity for self-reflection.

[reff]

Ace...

You're an ass. Just like Chuckie....

Oh, and I'm not a real person either. Prove that wrong.

Oh...wait....chuckie posted here too....

Never mind....

[Billy Beck]

I have a question, Adkins: if you think Coulter is so reprehensible, why do you keep trying to slide by comparing what you did with her? The fact is that where Coulter actually has a serious point in mind -- whether you approve of any of it or not -- you didn't. You just took a rabbit-punch on something you didn't know anything about, for no other reason than to see it bleed.

None of this has anything to do with Coulter, Flubber-Boy.

It's about the way you were raised.

Kaufman: stop being a dolt. You don't have to be a dolt.

[Pablo]

"He's a fictional character, confabulated by irate conservatives in desperate need of a straw man. How else could he embody the worst stereotypes of liberals and bloggers both?"

Oh Scott, you have too much faith in human nature. Unless, apparently, those humans happen to have a conservative bent. Thankfully, Chuck is an abortion hating fan of old JC, so at least there's some mitigation.

[Patterico]

Scott,

Hi. Never read your blog before but I find it entertaining. I scrolled down a few posts on the main page. You're a good writer and entertaining, albeit a bit baffling at times.

I wondered the same thing as you: is someone who seems like such a caricature really for real, really? I mean, really?!

But I think he is.

Are you deaf? Serious question. I think I saw a post on the main page that suggested you were. Because I listened to a podcast of his last night, and it convinced me of Adkins's genuineness more than anything else I've seen (or heard).

By the way, I tend to agree with him that he probably deserves to be left alone at this point, assuming he doesn't do anything else to provoke people. (Pretty big assumption given his history.) He does (finally!) seem to have issued a statement that does a pretty good imitation of a genuine apology. (To other readers: it was left as an update on his original post -- which he has miraculously managed to resurrect -- today. I'm not referring to his previous half-assed apology which was immediately followed by a lot of whiny justifications. This latest one is an actual fascimile of genuine contrition -- or at least someone finally self-aware enough to say the right things.)

Whether it's accepted or not is up to Mike Hendrix. But I'll probably be laying off Chuck for now, unless he does anything to call more attention to himself again.

Anyway, fun blog you got here.

[Patterico]

Oh, by the way, I have no idea what Adkins's politics are. He seems to be all over the map, as far as I can tell. I think it would be a mistake for either side to use him as an example of how [insert political leaning here] are all crazies.

[Chas]

I sure dont blame liberals for Chuckie. From reading his populist blog and his blog on Townhall.com I dont know if anyone can make out what his political beliefs are.

[Patterico]

Hey, is this story about you getting expelled over library fines for real? It seems about as real as Adkins.

To wit: both are funny, and if either one isn't real, it's the product of a great creative imagination.

[Ahistoricality]

Scott,

I don't see any evidence that Mr. Adkins is a liberal. He's a political conservative -- TownHall.org affiliation and all -- and born-again Christian who takes issue with Republicans for not being sufficiently clear-headed (of which Mr. Adkins appears to be his own arbiter, on his own terms) and self-critical with regard to security, etc. He's one of a substantial number of conservative bloggers whose politics are a little hard to pin down because their disappointment with Republicans in power -- much like progressives' disappointment with Democrats -- leads them to spend much time criticizing them for the same things liberals do. The difference, in both cases, is that what they want to see happen is quite the opposite of what the other side wants, but you won't be able to tell until they start talking about solutions, which is not most bloggers' strong suit.

And he's a professional traffic-hound, sometimes referred to as a "blog-whore," as evidenced by his relentless attacks, hyper-tagging of posts, and density of advertising. There was even one video that kept playing spontaneously, which I consider a gross violation of bloggerly standards.

He's not worth your puzzlement, honestly.

[Patterico]

But I saw somewhere that he said he'd never voted for a Republican in his life.

I'm not trying to paint him as a leftist, to show that THE LEFTIES ARE CRAZY!!!!1!!!1!! -- I'm just sayin', I don't think his views are easily categorized.

Well, actually, they are. They're crazy.

I just meant, from a right-left sort of perspective.

[Patterico]

Here's a quote of his from the HotFudgeDetroit message board:

"I.just.hate.fucking.republicans.with.a.passion!"

Heh. But I think I read somewhere else that he considers himself a Republican.

Which sorta makes sense.

[Chuck Adkins]

Y'all ever heard of Right of Center?

Yeesh...

[Ahistoricality]

Patterico, I never said he was a Republican, but that he was a conservative and born-again Christian who was disappointed with Republicans. Aside from the general tendency to see oneself as closer to the center than others do -- liberals do it, too -- I think Mr. Adkins self-description above as "Right of Center" is both reasonably apt and typically overcapitalized.

[Patterico]

He's 35 and has been eligible to vote since 18. That's 17 years. He's been disappointed with Republicans his entire adult voting life. (And hates fucking Republicans with a passion.) So, he's right of center. Hey, if it's important to you to believe that, go ahead. Me? I'm baffled.

Please, someone tell me if the gag about the library stealing all of SEK's money is for real. Damn, it's funny -- though, if real, scary as well.

[Ahistoricality]

Patterico, you might want to read this before you get too attached to binary, manichean, political dichotomies. Or, to put it in the vernacular, Right and Left is not all black and white.

Most things aren't.

[Dan Collins]

attached to binary, manichean, political dichotomies

You got yin in my yang.
You got yang in my yin.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmm!

Two great potentialities that go great together.

Because there are two kinds of people: binary manicheans, and liberals.

[BJTexs]

While the above is cute and giggly in a post modernist political labeling nyah, nyah, nyah kind of way, trying to pidgeonhole Chuckles on his political leanings is, ultimately, irrelevant.

Apparantly it takes some time and a firestorm of abuse before Chuck finally has enough self realization to post a genuine apology without 5 paragraphs of justification. A little late, but good on ya, Chuck! Liberal, Conservative, Progressive, Neocon; all have no meaning or purpose when a commentator attacks someone's dead spouse and sees that as a morally equivalent response to a criticism of one of his posts.

Hopefully (although past history does not provide a solid foundation of surety) Chuck will come to understand that his political and moral observations have no more weight or justification than most any other.

BTW: The "Chuck is a liberal" argument tends to explode when you consider that his post lauding the John Birch Society was the start of this sad, sorry affair.

Scott, you more than most know what it's like to be personally attacked for an honest opinion. Those who plow those fields deserve the light of intertube shaming.

[Scott Jacobs]

BJ

He frankly seems to flip-flop from being an uber-lib to arch-"conservative" from month to month.

I've read a post where he's listing every conspiracy theory about Mormons, posts about how he hates Coulter, posts where he claims to be a republican, and posts where he claims he's never voted for a republican in his life.

I think the person that is Chuck exists, though part of me isn't sure all his posts are actually what he thinks, and not what he thinks will get a rise out of people.

However it ends up, what he said about Mike's wife was 100% out of bounds, no matter what his politics are.

[Patterico]

Scott has it right.

I don't have to believe in binary manichean blobbity-blahs to conclude that this fellow doesn't exactly have a coherent political outlook.

The other fellow has it right, too. If we're constructing a caricature of a liberal, why was it praising the John Birch Society?