Quick Roundup 462

Monday, August 31, 2009

Why We Don't Want News "Bailouts"

A newspaper in Nevada explains this issue perfectly -- with an assist from Harry Reid.

On Wednesday, before he addressed a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce luncheon, [Senator Harry] Reid joined the chamber's board members for a meet-'n'-greet and a photo. One of the last in line was the Review-Journal's director of advertising, Bob Brown, a hard-working Nevadan who toils every day on behalf of advertisers. He has nothing to do with news coverage or the opinion pages of the Review-Journal.

Yet, as Bob shook hands with our senior U.S. senator in what should have been nothing but a gracious business setting, Reid said: "I hope you go out of business."

Later, in his public speech, Reid said he wanted to let everyone know that he wants the Review-Journal to continue selling advertising because the Las Vegas Sun is delivered inside the Review-Journal.


For the sake of all who live and work in Nevada, we can't let this bully behavior pass without calling out Sen. Reid. If he'll try it with the Review-Journal, you can bet that he's tried it with others. So today, we serve notice on Sen. Reid that this creepy tactic will not be tolerated. [minor format edits, bold added]
Read the whole thing. (HT: Dismuke)

Obama want to be your keeper.

A secular conservative commentator has penned an editorial (HT: HBL) that makes some very good points regarding Barack Obama's views on and actions regarding the issue of selfishness:
[T]he way Obama means [being "my brother's keeper"] is even worse. He does not view himself as a man in need of keeping; he views himself as the keeper. He invokes that line about being his brother's keeper in order to sell us on a health-care bill that will require all health-insurance plans to be designed and approved by a government overseer, and in which we will all be pushed into accepting health care provided by the government, on the government's terms.


Why does Obama expect us to put up with the prospect of living under government keepers? He is depending on what legal blogger William Jacobson calls, in a brilliant coinage, "ghimmitude." That's a combination of "gimme" and "dhimmitude," a term that refers to the voluntary acceptance by non-Muslims of second-class citizenship under the rule of Muslim overlords. Jacobson defines "ghimmitude" as "a peaceful surrender to the state in exchange for health-care security and benefits, based on accepting the inferiority of the individual and individual rights." ...
Read the whole thing.

An "Emergency" Gag?

Via Matt Drudge is an article on a re-write of a dangerous bill that would give the President "emergency" control over the Internet:
[A]ides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting [the revision] behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 ..., which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license. [bold added]
If anything, it seems that this version would make it unnecessary for the President to even pretend that a "cybersecurity emergency" exists, or to openly take such control.

Given that Harry Reid's party is writing the bill for the Keeper-in-Chief, that everything the Democrats want to do is premised on there being an "emergency" of some sort, and that all dissent is "disinformation," this scares the hell out of me.

Objectivist Carnival

Last week's edition is over at RealityTalk.

-- CAV

No comments: