A SLAPP IN THE MOUTH OF LIBERTY

ITEM: NPR's On The Media has an interesting story about SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), a category of lawsuits typically instigated by people or groups (particularly corporations) with the intent of silencing their critics. The point isn’t to win but to threaten critics with an expensive legal battle they can’t afford even if they were to win.

It’s one of the most insidious workarounds to the First Amendment that exploits the limits of protected speech (where libel and slander are not protected) and the expensive legal system to silence opposition or criticism – and it’s something we’re seeing more of now that the Interweb gives ordinary people a much broader forum for criticism than before.

Not that any of this is new. SLAPPs have been around for decades, as has the tactic of using deep pockets and the courts to ruin opponents regardless of the merits of their case.

I’m reminded of Edwin Armstrong, the guy who invented FM radio. RCA – which owned patents in AM radio and didn’t like the competition – lobbied the FCC to change the FM frequencies, rendering Armstrong’s technology useless, even as they were using his own technology without paying a dime in patent royalties. Armstrong sued and RCA dragged out the case for years until he was out of money, heavily in debt and and his patents were expired.

He jumped out a 13th floor window in 1954.

Which just goes to show: Big Money is more powerful than truth ... if you let it.

Put yr money where yr mouth is,

This is dF

EXCUSE ME, THIS ISN'T THE WAR I ASKED FOR

ITEM: Wikileaks releases a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad – including two Reuters news staff.

Which you may or may not know about, seeing as how Wikileaks had the unfortunate timing to release the video the same day a far more important news story was breaking.



Luckily, we have blogs for the unimportant stories.

Anyway, a lot has been (and will continue to be) written about the video, particularly in regard to the cavalier banter of the soldiers, whether they were justified under the rules of engagement, etc. Personally, as a peacetime combat veteran, I think such musings miss the real point of the video, which is this:

War involves deliberately killing people as violently as possible without pity or regret.

It sounds obvious, I know. But I don’t think it’s obvious enough – particularly to the 65% of the country that originally supported invading Iraq (and the 89% who supported invading Afghanistan). I’m sure they all understood on some vague abstract statistical level that some people might get killed (all of them either terrorists who deserved it or enemy soldiers who didn’t have the sense to surrender), but a lot of them probably didn’t really understand just what that entails.

Well, now you know.

And the way I see it, if you supported the war, you supported the contents of this video, as well as as every other horror story to come out of both fronts (like, say, killing civilian women then trying to cover it up).

Like it or not, these things happen in war zones. It doesn’t mean they’re justifiable. But guess what – they happen anyway. War enables them to happen. It always has. When you say “Oh HELL yeah!” to war, this is what yr saying “yes” to.

Enjoy!

Of course, I could be assuming too much. Maybe all the people who supported the war were looking forward to all the death and destruction. Maybe they’re disappointed videos like this didn’t come out sooner. Maybe they’re annoyed by the poor video quality and are even now lobbying Congress to give the Pentagon proper funding for HD color cameras with high-power optical zoom so they can see the good stuff.

Well, that’s probably true for some of them. For the ones who only supported it because they thought stuff like this didn’t happen, or that it would only take three weeks, or they really believed all that guff about WMDs, they’re probably grateful to have something to distract them from their collective embarrasment. Like Tiger Woods’ riveting tale of woe and redemption, the outcome of which is vital to America’s interests.

Whatever. Either way, if you supported the war, rest assured yr getting the war you deserve.

Shoot ‘em down,

This is dF

IF YOU THINK YOU CAN SEE WHATEVER DOCTOR YOU WANT UNDER OBAMACARE, YOU DON’T KNOW JACK

ITEM: Florida urologist Dr Jack Cassell posts a sign on his office door:  "If you voted for Obama, seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years."

Cassell explains himself on Fox News, saying he isn’t literally refusing to treat Obama supporters (he's just encouraging them to fuck off, which is totally different), but just trying to make a political point about how horrible the healthcare reform bill is because it completely kills off hospice care:

"I came across the timeline for implementation of Obamacare and I got a little discouraged when I got to next year when I found that most of the ancillary services and nursing homes and diagnostic imaging, all these things start to fade away," he told Fox News. "And I felt that my patients really need to know about this. And the more I thought about it, the angrier I got until I finally felt like I'm going to put a little splash page on my front door and just get people thinking a little bit."

The reform bill, of course, does no such thing. But whatever. Most healthcare reform opponents never based their arguments on real provisions in the bill anyway – they weren’t going to magically start doing so now that it’s passed.

As Jon Stewart will tell you now.

Watch on YouTube

Anyway, I think this is just the latest symptom (if you will) of the Everything Is Political movement that’s been sweeping the country for the last couple of decades, in which companies and service providers – telephone companies, Burger King, etc – feel compelled to express polarizing political beliefs at the potential expense of a chunk of their customer base.

We already have the ability to choose our media intake, long-distance phone service and condiments based solely on whether it reinforces our own sociopolitical biases. Now we can use the same criteria when choosing doctors, apparently. Because which is more important – where yr doctor studied medicine, years of experience, or who he/she voted for in the last election?

And why not? Personally I think Dr Jack Cassell can believe Obama is a disguised alien lizard man from the planet Arcturus if he wants. And if he wants to treat only Republicans, fine by me. I’m assuming he’s not the only urologist in Mount Dora, so if he wants to send libtard patients to the competition, I’m sure they’ll appreciate the referrals.

I also presume the urology business is brisk enough that Cassell won’t miss the drop-off in clientele. And if he does, then it’s own fault for believing the dingbats who think Obamacare will lead straight to mandatory homosexuality and Nazi death camps.

Which is silly, of course. Everyone knows that the Healthcare Industry is too big to fail. Just ask Pfizer. They committed gross acts of marketing fraud and pinned the blame on a shell company, and the Obama-led DOJ went with it because actually prosecuting and convicting Pfizer would potentially put them out of business.

And that would be bad, considering how Pfizer supports the healthcare reform bill (well, now that they’re convinced it won’t eat into their profit margins).

That’s the free market for you. As opposed to Socialism, I mean.

The doctor is out,

This is dF