Monday, January 30, 2006

Raimondo Battles Lefty Anti-Capitalists In His Head, Again

Does it say something about me that I continue reading the more-frequently-delusional writing of Justin Raimondo? Don't answer that.

In an article defending the freedom of Google - I guess - from the tyranny of the all-powerful 'liberal-lefties' in our current government, Raimondo rips into those who possess a 'hatred of capitalism':

Hatred of capitalism also motivates the get-Google campaign: they've made 'too much' money and aren't being 'socially responsible,' wail the liberal-lefties in their whiniest, most self-righteous tones. These types glory in what they hope is the company's comeuppance. Allied with these charming folks are the literary types, with their tweed jackets, smelly pipes, and elbow patches, who take great pride in their ignorance of and disdain for computers, technology, and modernity in general, and see themselves as the Guardians of Lost Standards. In reality, they are Luddites who would sabotage the enormous advances the Internet has made possible in the field of journalism, for one.

Question for Raimondo: Who are these 'whiny', 'wailing', 'anti-capitalist', 'liberal-lefties' who are complaining that Google has made 'too much' money 'most self-righteously' in their 'get-Google campaign'?

Answer: They don't exist.

The article Raimondo pointed to is titled 'Google Starts Up Philanthropy Campaign', with the byline 'Some Question Structure of Giving, Which Allows Company More Flexibility'. Doesn't sound too anti-capitalist to me, but what do I know - let's read it and find out.

Ah-hah! Got it! Listen to this:

The board of directors should make it clear to the company's founders what should be personal and what should be corporate," said Patrick S. McGurn, special counsel to Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. "Google is spending shareholders' money, and it raises questions if there is not a valid corporate purpose.

There it is - in black and white - that guy Patrick McGurn (sounds like an anti-capitalist name if you ask me) of ISS (notice the 'SS' in the name of the company - kind of like 'Social Security' - that socialist program!) is saying that he wants Google to make money - lots of it - and he wants as much of that money as possible to go directly to Google's capitalist shareholders, not to some whiny liberal-lefty nonprofit organizations. So there it is, the proves my point that....huh?


Raimondo is arguing here that the guy trying to maximize shareholder value/profit over the interests of the two lefty co-founders of the company is an anti-capitalist? Make sense? Of course, not.

Or, maybe Raimondo is pissed-off that the lefty Google founders made so much money? Ahhh, maybe that's it.

No, that's not it. I think I know what it is, though - and it ain't pretty: Raimondo's has gone off a cliff - again.

As readers, we have to understand when certain writers are too emotionally tied up in a subject to make any sense. Their sentimentality towards a given subject is so extreme that they fail in their task to write objectively/convincingly/honestly. So, here's a brief list of people who 'lose it' and the topic they lose it over:

* Justin Raimondo - 'the Left'
* Alan Dershowtitz - Israel
* Eric Alterman - Noam Chomsky

The list, I'm sure, is much longer - these are just the folks I have been known to read, so I know their failings pretty well.

Who could these people possibly be that Raimondo is referring to? Google? The people who run Google? Institutional Shareholder Services? I checked out the ISS site - they seem pretty legit to me. Maybe Raimondo found something else? Ah - maybe that's it. Raimondo is Libertarian, which means he wants corporations to be able to do whatever without any government oversight, no laws, etc., and this ISS company counsels businesses on business law so ISS should be condemned? Got me.

Occam's Razor - it's probably just his way of balancing out his attack pieces, I guess. He criticized a bunch of Rethugs, so I guess he needed to say something about 'liberal-lefties'. Not cool.

UPDATE: A letter to website editor of said that the link on the "aren't" in the quoted text was actually meant to be sarcastic. I didn't realize that - it would have been possible to decipher that had the author linked to an article that actually tried to make his point - that Google gives a lot of money. Instead, he linked to an article debating the legality and profitability of Google's corporate giving with respect to shareholder value. The article's suggestion of a vast left wing conspiracy out to get Google is still laughable (no, I'm not being sarcastic).

No comments: