Alec Baldwin has been the social media whipping boy ever since his Twitter storm last Wednesday complaining that New Yorkers who were peacefully protesting for better pay had inconvenienced him.
And now he’s been nuked, obliterated even, in a scathing op-ed in The New York Times.
“Life in NY is hard enough as is,” Baldwin tweeted at the height of the marches. “The goal is to not make it more so. How does clogging rush hour traffic from 59th St to 42 do any good?”
The 10-ton snark bombs were dropping in writer Rachel L. Swarns’ open letter to the loudmouthed Hollywood A-lister.
She was merciless, particularly when she schooled him on peaceful protests and the history of social justice movements and took on his boo-hoo that he was inconvenienced.
Baldwin’s not backing down, saying the marchers do little to aid their cause with many of their in-your-face tactics.
He's even calling the protesters – gasp! – liberals!
His most recent tweet: “I support the cause, but not the method. But liberals are above criticism. Well, some.” And he linked to Swarns’ piece.
Excerpts of what she wrote:
“The convenience factor! Now, that, Mr. Baldwin, is an issue that doesn’t get raised every day by your fellow supporters of a living wage. And it reminds me that this point rarely comes up when we consider the history of social movements in the United States: the sheer inconvenience that peaceful protests create for people who are not protesting ...”
"Just think back to the recent coverage of the 50th anniversary of the 1965 “Bloody Sunday” march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala. I watched some of that on television and not a single correspondent that I saw posed the pointed question: What kinds of traffic disruptions did those civil rights activists cause when they tried to cross that bridge?