« Present Dangers | Main | Clinton »
Raimondo
There's been some very silly efforts to stir up controversy in comments over the fact that I cited a Justin Raimondo article in my post recent Prospect column. Here's the bottom line: Raimondo uncovered a piece of information that was relevant to the article that was writing so I chose to include that item and, being a journalist, I chose to give credit to the person who originally uncovered the information. Doing so rather obviously in no way constitutes an endorsement of the man's entire political program. Nor did I simply take his assertion on faith, I followed through. The person in question is, indeed, a CPD member and she is, indeed, the General Secretary of the group Raimondo said she was General Secretary of, and the group in question is, indeed, a leading apologist for the Karimov regime in Uzbekistan. This is the transmission of accurate and relevant information complete with a giving of credit to the originator of the information. If Justin ever writes something that involves mentioning a piece of information I brought to his attention I would expect him to do the same, notwithstanding our disagreements on various issues. This really isn't such a difficult concept to grasp.
July 27, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8342484a653ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Raimondo:
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 6, 2005 9:06:03 PM
Comments
Matt,
I wasn't trying to "stir up controversy," nor was I accusing you of endorsing Raimondo's "entire political program."
I was merely pointing out that, IMO, he's a very shady character himself, who holds extremist right-wing positions, and has a penchant for hate mongering and conspiracy theories. And that shouldn't be a "very difficult concept to grasp" either.
However, many people might not know who he is, and there shouldn't be any controversy in pointing it out.
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Jul 27, 2004 3:01:10 PM
SoCalJustice:
So does the information you provide discredit the facts Matt cites or is it an ad hominem attack on the source?
Posted by: epistemology | Jul 27, 2004 3:45:35 PM
SoCal Justice is just doing what passes for debate these days: trying to exclude people from a discussion because their views are "unacceptable".
So very Soviet of you, So Cal.
Posted by: Loopy libertarian | Jul 27, 2004 3:53:44 PM
epistemology,
In short, no.
I haven't attempted to do so, nor would I want to. I have no desire to defend the the CPD, and am not trying to do so. It's not about that at all.
If you go back to the last thread (especially the bottom half), you will see that this is not about even trying to discredit this particular piece of information. I wrote that I'm guessing Raimondo is probably correct.
It's about expressing the fact that to me (obviously I never said everyone else has to feel the same way), when someone I deem credible and intelligent sources someone I deem malicious, shady and a far-right wing extremist, it's depressing.
That's all.
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Jul 27, 2004 3:57:06 PM
Loopy Libertarian:
Ah yes, by pointing out the far-right wing extremist nature of Mr. Raimondo, I am now a far-left wing totalitarian extremist.
Right.
I guess it's just plain wrong of me to even - shudder the thought - mention who Justin is and where he's coming from.
So doesn't that make you someone who's trying to stifle debate too, by setting the parameters for what's permissible to mention at all?
Wow, I sense irony.
And thanks for assuming that I have the power to exclude anyone from any debate.
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Jul 27, 2004 4:04:04 PM
"I was merely pointing out that, IMO, he's a very shady character himself, who holds extremist right-wing positions, and has a penchant for hate mongering and conspiracy theories."
Sounds like Charles Johnson you're talking about there SoCal.
Posted by: vojak | Jul 27, 2004 4:14:41 PM
Beyond that, SoCal, you were using this as one more example of how anti-war leftists are willing to collaborate with Nazi types. This is an overhyped talking-point cliche at best, and in any case not relevant here, since Mat is not really anti-war, not really leftist, and is not in bed with Raimundo.
Posted by: Zizka | Jul 27, 2004 4:18:11 PM
So Cal,
Raimondo is hardly a "far right-wing extremist". I mean, anyone can call anyone else an "extremist," but Raimondo is a libertarian whom I would not classify as "far right wing". But whatever.
The point is he had some good information and was properly credited as a journalist. You have a problem with this because -- well, I think I can guess why from your posts.
Posted by: Loopy Libertarian | Jul 27, 2004 4:25:20 PM
And So Cal,
Me trying to keep you from excluding others from a debate by attempting to deligitimize them does not mean that I'm trying to exclude *you* from the debate.
Posted by: Loopy Libertarian | Jul 27, 2004 4:27:05 PM
Zizka,
Well, I wouldn't put it the same way as you - clearly what you just described is not going on here.
But we do have an instance of a credible, liberal journalist citing a far-right wing extremist to make a case. And I'm just saying that I think there are better ways. Maybe I'm wrong and the only way to do a piece on this "think tank" and give a fair, accurate account is by citing Raimondo and his scoop.
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Jul 27, 2004 4:30:33 PM
One thing that IS worth discussing is whether Justin and Matt's characterization of whatsername as an "apologist" for a hideous autocrat is correct.
Is it?
What if Karimov really has been improving his human rights record, Sufism is a good counter to Wahabism, Hizb-ut-Tahrir is a front group for Al Qaeda, Human Rights Watch is apologizing for them, and distancing ourselves from Karimov will only push him into the arms of the Rooskies, who don't give a flying fuck about human rights?
Something to consider.
Posted by: praktike | Jul 27, 2004 4:35:07 PM
loopy libertarian:
you write: "Raimondo is hardly a "far right-wing extremist". I mean, anyone can call anyone else an "extremist," but Raimondo is a libertarian whom I would not classify as "far right wing". But whatever."
Would you classify Pat Buchanan as far-right wing? I would. And I guess I think someone who writes a book called "Reclaiming the American Right" and has Buchanan write the forward is a bit of a right-wing extremist too.
You're totally free to feel otherwise.
you write: "Me trying to keep you from excluding others from a debate by attempting to deligitimize them does not mean that I'm trying to exclude *you* from the debate."
No, you're just trying to exclude *thoughts* from the debate. How fascist of you.
Again, whatever.
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Jul 27, 2004 4:37:12 PM
So Cal,
You are an extremist so I don't have to listen to your views, as they are invalid.
No one listen to So Cal, because he is an extremist who posts to "Little Green Footballs," which is a hate site.
Anyone who posts to LGF is a hater and an extremist. So Cal is one of those extreme haters.
Posted by: Loopy Libertarian | Jul 27, 2004 4:52:07 PM
loopy libertarian:
I never, ever said that YOU, or anyone else, needs to listen (or read, in this case), my views.
But it's funny to watch you parrot Justin's attempted defense of himself in the last thread.
Pretty boring.
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Jul 27, 2004 4:59:02 PM
So Cal,
You are indeed an extreme hater, as a browsing of your comments on LGF shows. I don't know where you got so hateful, but I think everyone should know where you're coming from before we exclude you from the debate altogether. People should know how deeply you hate, and how extreme your views are.
Posted by: Loopy Libertarian | Jul 27, 2004 5:05:15 PM
loopy l:
When you're done apeing Raimondo, would you care to tell the class whether or not you find Pat Buchanan to be extreme and/or far-right wing?
I think that may shed some light on this "debate," especially for those unfamiliar with Raimondo.
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Jul 27, 2004 5:07:17 PM
wow, you really are a loopy libertarian, and instead of answering simple questions, have decided to go off on some unsupported rant.
This is the internet. You easily could link to all my "hateful" comments, which shouldn't take you any time at all, since there are obviously so many to choose from.
It's roughly 5:10 pm EDT. I'm sure it won't be that hard for you to post a selection of my "hateful" comments, by say, 5:30?
Or, you can regain your sanity, to the extent you had it, and tell us how you'd characterize Pat Buchanan.
Or you can continue going insane and posting nonsense.
Or, well, just do whatever.
Who really cares at this point.
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Jul 27, 2004 5:12:30 PM
So Cal,
Who cares what Buchanan is? He was an aide to three U.S. presidents, co-anchored Crossfire on CNN, had his own show on MSNBC, and won several Republican primaries in 1992 and 1996. Of course he's conservative, but your attempts to put him outside of respectable discourse are -- yes -- Soviet.
So are your attempts to put Raimondo outside of respectable discourse. On these two threads, you've compared him to David Duke, called him an "extremist" with a "penchant for hate-mongering," and claimed it was "embarrassing" that MY cited him as a journalist in his piece.
Let's cut to the chase, So Cal. You're obviously a big supporter of Israel, and Raimondo is one of the few voices in America who speaks out against the Israel Lobby's power here. Now you can agree or disagree with Raimondo's positions, but trying to exclude him from the debate -- which you certainly did -- by attempting to shame MY for citing him ("how embarrassing") is dirty baseball, and against America's tradition of open debate. Persuasion is our tradition, not silencing of dissent. Raimondo is strident (a little too strident for me, often) and doesn't always get his facts right, but his positions against Israel's influence in the U.S. are neither outside the mainstream of American opinion nor illegitimate. I think this is the real reason you've got such passion against Raimondo.
So persuade us, So Cal. Don't just try to delegitimize the people who disagree with you.
Posted by: Loopy Libertarian | Jul 27, 2004 5:19:53 PM
For those unfamiliar with LGF, a site on which SoCal has racked up thousands of posts, here's sample from their comment section :
"#31 Modern Crusader 5/22/2004 02:38PM PST
Interesting read. I respect his views. But I disagree. The people who would've taken the bait and wiped Fallujah out are smarter than those who let the terrorist Al Sadr and his terrorist Mohammedan Jihadis escape to kill more Americans. 20 million Iraqi lives aren't worth 1 American life. Fallujah should be nothing more than a memory. Women and children included. Wiping them out is a merciful act because that way the LORD Jesus Christ won't have to damn their descendents to lakes of fire and sulfur for the rest of eternity."
There are many more where that came from, so it's a bit hypocritical hearing you, of all people, complaining about the 'far-right' and attendant associations.
Posted by: vojak | Jul 27, 2004 5:21:34 PM
Uh-oh.
Is it time to trot out Pat Buchanan's curious column where he defends Ivan the terrible on the grounds that there's no way the gas at Treblinka could have worked?
Let me know, and I'll find it.
Posted by: praktike | Jul 27, 2004 5:22:49 PM
Yeah So Cal, how do you defend your association with LGF and comments like the above? Do you deny that LGF is a hate-filled site full of extremists, and that you have hundreds and hundreds of posts there?
Posted by: Loopy Libertarian | Jul 27, 2004 5:28:56 PM
No reply from SoCal the hater. How could there be -- he's got hundreds of posts on a known hate site, Little Green Footballs. Good riddance to the hater known as "So Cal Justice".
Posted by: Loopy Libertarian | Jul 27, 2004 5:40:50 PM
vojak:
I think everyone here is familiar with LGF. And we've had the discussions here before.
How one poster there can be responsible for everything said on the entire site is beyond me.
I would say this about the comment you chose:
It is not at all representative of the site, IMO, NOR is it the worst thing I've ever read there. I freely admit that a lot of the subject matter there brings certain crazies out of the woodwork.
I cannot defend, nor will I defend, what everyone writes in the comment section.
There are some real freakshows that show up there, just like on several other sites on the internet.
I'm not sure what more I can say, but if you have a specific question, I will try and answer it.
________________________________________________
Loopy Liberatarian,
Ok, you seem to have calmed down after two really wacky posts.
So, your position is that Pat Buchanan is not a right-wing extremist. Fine.
Re: Justin, Israel and Me.
I am a supporter of Israel, but Raimondo's anti-Israel positions are hardly the only thing I find objectionable about the man.
You write that he's too strident for you, often, and that he doesn't always get his facts right. Even though you don't think so, I find that to be quite an indictment coming from you, especially in light of what you just said about Pat Buchanan.
And I still think it's embarrassing to cite him in a piece of journalism. Is there anyone you would consider embarrassing to cite in credible journalism? I really hope not, because that would be "excluding someone from the debate."
you write: "Do you deny that LGF is a hate-filled site full of extremists, and that you have hundreds and hundreds of posts there?"
Yes, I deny it. I probably have thousands of posts there. And I'm waiting for you or Justin to find one where I compare anyone to "pigs" or anything I said that is hateful.
The deadline to cite to one of my "hateful" posts lapsed 15 minutes ago. I'll give you some more time if you care to look around, but being that they're so plentiful, I would have expected you to post at least a couple by now.
And oh god, I just read your last post. You really are lame.
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Jul 27, 2004 5:45:59 PM
SoCal,
did you really say that "20 million Iraqi lives aren't worth 1 American life"? I can't believe you would write something like this, Justice. If anything is "extreme" in this world - this is it, right here. How disappointing.
Posted by: abb1 | Jul 27, 2004 5:48:05 PM
Re: addendum to my last post.
There are several regulars and many irregulars at LGF that I do consider extremists, and some of them I consider "hate-filled" extremists. I usually scroll by those people and only respond to people I consider reasonable.
But I also don't answer for all the posters there. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people registered to post on that site.
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Jul 27, 2004 5:52:06 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
