Okay, I suppose it's time to let folks know where I stand on this issue.
There have been some concerns raised in the comments and via E-mail, particularly in the SEIU's Game of Risk posting, that some of the links will lead readers to sites that are, to the thought processes of some people, of less than acceptable pedigree when it comes to progressive thinking.
To me, information is information, and as such it should carry no political litmus test.
Whether or not you disagree with the stance that the author of Fresh Juice takes with unions, the plain fact of the matter is that the post to which I linked was immaculately sourced, contained a link to an internal SEIU document that SEIU obviously did not want publicized (supplied by another less-than-progressive website), and quite clearly explained the point better than I could have given the resources and time at my current disposal.
I make no bones about my opposition to SEIU, in all forms that it takes. In my opinion, SEIU has long outlived its usefulness in this society, and needs to be blown up and started over.
But right now, most of the people who carry that frame of mind can be put into two camps - those (like Labor Pains and others) who oppose unions in general, and those (like the NUHW partisans) who oppose SEIU in particular. The bulk of the anti-SEIU newsgathering is being conducted by those in the former camp, primarily because the Lamestream Media is too busy trying to error-check whether or not Sarah Palin really thinks Todd Palin is hawt.
I personally have no problem at all collecting information from ANY source, liberal or conservative or somewhere in between, if that source would serve to document and display the utter and rank hyporcisy, not to mention the borderline criminal activity, coming out of Dupont Circle. I do not apply any kind of progressive (or conservative) litmus test to any links. Rather, I read and judge each link to determine whether or not it is a) cogent; and b) properly sourced, prior to commenting and/or linking to it.
Furthermore, I trust the readers of ¡AA! to be able to make such distinctions, and to keep them in mind, should they choose to follow the links as well.
This fight that we are in cannot be won by using Marquess of Queensbury rules.
To those of you who would wish that I avoid linking to sites that aren't Perfectly Progressive, I regret to inform you that your wish in that regard will go unfulfilled. Because until such time as MSNBC or CNN or The Nation or other similarly "palatable" nationwide sources take off their purple blinders, I have to fight with the weapons to which I have access.
Thatisall.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good research and writing needs no defense.
ReplyDeleteWell said!
ReplyDeleteThank you! An enemy of an enemy is our friend! The "progressive media" like Arianna Huffington, Rachel Maddow, and the Nation give SEIU a free pass. So I agree with you: any info on SEIU is important info, nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteWow ... that was the first really lame thing that you've posted here. You could have MEANINGFULLY acknowledged how sketchy those sites were -- after all, what THEY want for working people makes SEIU look like junior league criminals -- but instead you chose to be completely defensive and dismissive. Call me and everyone else whose eyebrows were raised "Too PC" or however else you want to brush us off; but if that's the best you can do when a legitimate criticsm is pointed out, you've just damaged your own credibility. But after your last response, I doubt you'll care.
ReplyDeleteMatthew - it's not that I don't care. It's just that I find the complaint that you are leveling somewhat juvenile.
ReplyDeleteThe NUHW side of the equation is, at the present time, outmanned and outgunned by the SEIU media machine. As such, we need to use resources that we would not otherwise want to use, but whose utility is nonetheless there for all to see.
Should I have not reported on the CalPERB Fresno filing when it first came out because the primary source for that news was in the Wall Street Journal? Should I have embargoed the Fresh Juice piece even though the sourcing in the quote was taken from the LA Times as well as from NUHW itself?
As much as we would like to see it continue, we cannot depend on SEIU to keep scoring own-goals on themselves the way they have been doing the previous two evenings. And as such, we have to use sources and documentation that some may find distasteful.
I tend to look at such things with a somewhat more realistic (and admittedly jaundiced) eye. If someone gives me a rhetorical weapon against SEIU that is well-founded and independently sourcable, I'm not going to stop and embargo that information for the possibility of some folks fearing the spread of conservacooties.
And at the end of the day, I trust the readership of this blog to be intelligent enough and adult enough to know the difference.
SierraSpartan -- For the record, I'm NOT saying you shouldn't use such sources. It's just important to me personally (a regular reader, and a staunch but strongly pro-worker critic of SEIU) to know that you don't endorse those groups, even though their facts may be correct/useful. And I admit the map was hilarious -- but that's why my stomach turned when I clicked on the link and found out who they actually were.
ReplyDeleteIf I had just read some caveat like "these folks suck but they've got some good dirt/a funny map/etc etc", I personally would have been fine with it. I'm guessing many others would feel the same way, although I really have no idea who else reads this blog (besides the rest of my office, haha).
And if I'm reading you wrong and you DO have some sympathy for sites like that, it would be good to know it so that we could leave the site alone. But I hope that's not the case.
Peace out, and thanks for the other great work you've done.