While I agree that Google’s behavior is blatantly partisan, that doesn’t excuse the continued misunderstanding of the First Amendment repeated in this Examiner editorial:
On its face, a policy that allows censorship of political speech critical of the trademark holder is a violation of the First Amendment. If Google maintains this policy, it will be handing a powerful tool for crushing dissent not only to political groups like MoveOn.org but to every corporation with a trademarked name.
Ahmadinejad had no First Amendment right to speak at Columbia, and he had no First Amendment right to not be criticized, either before, during or after his speech. And I have no First Amendment right to AT&T DSL service, or to not have it cut off if I express an opinion over its tubes. All that the First Amendment says is that “Congress shall make no law,” not “Columbia University will grant a podium and audience,” or “AT&T shall provide Internet service regardless of the behavior of the customer.”
It also doesn’t say that “Google shall not discriminate by political beliefs in which ads it chooses to run.”
Not that Google shouldn’t be criticized, and its hypocrisy pointed out on a daily basis, of course.
3. Kill a lot of people, then stop. In 1973, the Nobel Peace Prize was shared by Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho. Kissinger’s CV included the “secret” bombing of Cambodia and the “Christmas” bombing of North Vietnam; just a month before his prize was announced, he was complicit in the coup that installed a brutal dictatorship in Chile. So why did he win? Because he and Tho had reached a truce to end the Vietnam War. Tho wasn’t a particularly peaceful man either, but at least he had the common courtesy to refuse the award.
More recently, the prize went to Palestine Liberation Organization chief Yasser Arafat, a man whose career to that point had been spent arranging terrorist assaults on civilians. He shared the award with Israel’s Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin; the three of them, like Kissinger and Tho, had negotiated an end to a war. In this case the peace agreement didn’t hold, and both the state of Israel and various Palestinian groups went on to produce many more corpses. So don’t worry if you develop a taste for blood during the initial stage of your Peace Prize campaign: You’re free to resume killing once Mr. Nobel’s money is safely in your hands.
Everyone else has been linking to this piece, but (contrarian that I am) I’ve been bucking the trend. But after actually reading it, I could understand why they have, so I am as well.
Jimmy Carter, of all people, calls Dick Cheney a “disaster.” I suspect that the vice president will have too much class to respond, but the response would surely be entertaining.
I’ve long believed that once she became the nominee (as seems increasingly likely), Hillary!™’s past would come back to haunt her. One of the means by which this would happen would be the “Slick Grope Vets For Truth.” Well, it looks like Kathleen Willey has fired the first salvo. And interestingly, I hadn’t read about this in the news:
…as evidence that the Clintons haven t changed, the terror and harassment continue. Over 2007’s Labor Day weekend, Kathleen’s home was burglarized. Instead of taking jewelry or computers, the thief took the manuscript for Target, with its explosive revelations that could damage Sen. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Sounds par for the course to me. Hopefully (and apparently) it wasn’t the only copy.
Is anybody else troubled that someone can give a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court $1.5 million for a book deal, but I can’t give him a $100 gift?
Here’s a spot where FEC monitoring of money flows would be useful. I want to hear what the Justices have to say, so banning book deals seems wrong. But this appears to be an easy way for a single entity to influence a Justice’s decisions. I think everyone should have a chance to give Thomas money to influence his decisions just like we do by donating to elected officials’ campaigns.
I wonder how Thomas will dispel the appearance of impropriety. If he waits until 2009, he may get impeached.
—Update 2:30 PM CDT—
My commenters seem to think there is no appearance of impropriety. So I guess if you want to buy influence with a non-elected official, offer them a $1.5 million book deal.
Matt Welch’s new book on John McCain looks interesting, though fortunately for the country, I don’t think he’s going to be either nominated or elected, so it won’t matter.
Mark Steyn, on the Democrats’ stealth nationalization of “health care” and their cynical use and abuse of children:
The Democrats chose to outsource their airtime to a Seventh Grader. If a political party is desperate enough to send a boy to do a man’s job, then the boy is fair game. As it is, the Dems do enough cynical and opportunist hiding behind biography and identity, and it’s incredibly tedious. And anytime I send my seven-year-old out to argue policy you’re welcome to clobber him, too. The alternative is a world in which genuine debate is ended and, as happened with Master Frost, politics dwindles down to professional staffers writing scripts to be mouthed by Equity moppets.
…So executive vice-presidents’ families are now the new new poor? I support lower taxes for the Frosts, increased child credits for the Frosts, an end to the “death tax” and other encroachments on transgenerational wealth transfer, and even severe catastrophic medical-emergency aid of one form or other. But there is no reason to put more and more middle-class families on the government teat, and doing so is deeply corrosive of liberty.
And, if the Democrats don’t like me saying that, next time put up someone in long pants to make your case.
. And interestingly, I hadn’t read about this in the news: