You aroused my interest in what John Scalzi actually said about the Rall cartoon(s) so I visted the website and read Scalzi's comments.
As I read it, Scalzi didn't 'defend' Rall (he claimed Rall didn't want to be defended) and he made the observation that the cartoon was offensive but that the artist had a point to make and although Scalzi didn't seem to have much enthusiasm for the 'point' (9/11 widows and greed) he appears to admire Rall for daring to make it.
A back-handed compliment, as it were.
Scalizi's comments regarding the cartoon mocking Mrs. Pearl were also rather bland; he thought that the fact she wasn't hysterical on TV interviews had something to do with her journalist background and a desire to thwart the kidnappers attempts at terrorizing her and the public. A valid point. Scalizi again didn't praise the cartoons, but the artists 'bravery' at drawing them, even though Rall knew they were offensive and probably unfair.
I had the impression that Scalizi was looking for some way to be on Rall's side, even when he couldn't approve of what the man had published. Liberals do this a lot, often where criminals are concerned. Any rationale that will absolve the offender is used, especially if he can be made to appear 'noble' in the process.
Tiresome and typical while liberals believe it to be intellectual and compassionate.
I don't share one iota of Scalizi's admiration for Rall but he didn't 'praise' the vile cartoons in question, he actually expressed a distaste for the material while admiring the 'honesty' of the artist. BS, but not quite as disgusting as your post implied. Thanks for the addy so we could check it out for ourselves.
Suspect this guy only posted this article to get us to get hits on his web sight.(a lot of hits can mean advertising dollars)I'm not buying.