Jun 30, 2011
If it weren’t so sad, it would be funny.
World Net Daily CEO Joseph Farah and author Jerome Corsi are suing the Hearst Corporation, Esquire magazine and writer Mark Warren for $285 million dollars over a satirical article Warren wrote on May 18, 2011.
What makes this particularly odd is that Corsi and Farah have been at the forefront of the so called “birther movement” demanding that Obama prove he is eligible to be president. They believe that Obama has not satisfied the requirements set forth in the Constitution.
That’s right, the Constitution. The same Constitution that holds the First Amendment which protects speech such as satire and certainly satirical speech toward public figures such as Farah and Corsi.
For people who keep screaming about the Constitution, you’d think they’d actually have read it, but apparently not.
So in what appears to be another stunt to gain attention, Corsi and Farah are suing the above named parties for what is clearly protected speech.
In the article, Warren wrote,
In a stunning development one day after the release of Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President, by Dr. Jerome Corsi, World Net Daily Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah has announced plans to recall and pulp the entire 200,000 first printing run of the book, as well as announcing an offer to refund the purchase price to anyone who has already bought either a hard copy or electronic download of the book.
Jun 30, 2011
Imagine if you will, owning a company that makes widgets. (Widgets and thing-a-majigs are always the hypothetical product of choice.) You decide to make the Widget I, which will be the greatest widget ever to hit the market place.
Unfortunately, Widget I is a flop, and people can’t stand the thing.
After 2 years and millions in losses, the Widget I sits on your warehouse shelves, taking up space and money.
You wait 18 years or so, and after a slight redesign of the original widget, the new and improved Widget Ia is released to much fanfare and hoopla.
However, like its predecessor, Widget Ia is a flop of monumental proportions. It too now sits on your warehouse shelves taking up space.
Eight years later, you decide that the failure of Widgets I and Ia failed because people just weren’t ready for the awesomeness of the Widgets. You spend money on a new design, changing size and color but retaining the essence of the previous widgets.
Jun 29, 2011
If we were to ask you to think of famous Republicans, we would bet that you would never mention Vladimir Lenin, who founded the Soviet Communist Party or ex-Beatle John Lennon who once famously stayed in bed one week with his wife.
Lenin was a communist while Lennon was a drug smoking, peace activist musician who Nixon wanted deported because of Lennon’s opposition to the war in Viet Nam. Neither man had a resume that would scream “conservative” or “Republican.”
Yet according to a new documentary, at the time of his death, John Lennon had changed his views to that of Republicans.
Jun 28, 2011
Our good friend Steve Bussey over at Stevebussey.com has a different take on the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association than we do here at Raised On Hoecakes.
His essay, is, as always, passionate in demonstrating his beliefs. Unfortunately, it is wrong on several issues.
Steve comes right out of the box and claims,
Well, now little Johnny can look daddy square in the eye and tell him to shut the hell up with the backing of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, what the ruling did was not only to acknowledge the parental rights to raise a child as the parent sees fit. The ruling tells the state to stay out of it. “Little Johnny” is still subject to the rules and discipline of his father. What the court is saying is that as a parent, the government does not have the right to tell you how to raise your child.
Why Steve believes that government putting their stamp of approval on how you raise your child is a good thing is unclear, but on this case he is siding with nanny state liberals.
Jun 28, 2011
On Saturday, June 25th, the Mexican National soccer team came to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California to play the US National Team for the Gold Cup Championship. After spotting the US a 2 goal lead early in the game, the Mexicans roared back with 4 unanswered goals to win 4 – 2.
After the game, the talk has not been as much about the US losing, but the fans and the ceremonies after the game.
Over ninety three thousand fans attended the game, most of them rooting for Mexico. Their support turned a game on American soil to a home game for the Mexican team.
Predictably, some people are upset by this:
Mexico was the “home team” for the largely Hispanic crowd. America’s national anthem got no respect: Air horns blared. And once the game started, the U.S. team was constantly booed. Every goal by Mexico’s team drew shouts of “Ole!”
Jun 28, 2011
The Supreme Court published its opinion in BROWN v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION saying that the state of California had no Constitutional right to restrict the sale of “violent” video games to minors.
The court correctly found that the state of California had no Constitutional basis for restricting the sale of “violent video games” without showing genuine harm to minors. In his majority opinion, Justice Scalia noted that while there might be evidence of a correlation of violence in minors and video games, there is no evidence that video games caused the violence. Because there is no factual assertion that video games cause violence or injuries, California’s law was in fact a restriction of the First Amendment.
Of the decision, California State Senator Senator Leland Yee, who represents San Francisco and San Mateo counties said,
“Unfortunately, the majority of the Supreme Court once again put the interests of corporate America before the interests of our children,” said the law’s author, Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco). “As a result of their decision, Wal-Mart and the video game industry will continue to make billions of dollars at the expense of our kids’ mental health and the safety of our community. It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.”
Jun 27, 2011
The state of Maryland, the bastion of people who believe in hurting businesses any time they can, finally decided last year to allow state wineries to ship bottles of wine directly to homes.
(Okay, our first thought too was “Maryland has wine makers?” but there are approximately 50 wine makers in the state.)
Obviously allowing wine producers to ship directly to homes would expand the business of the wine makers. A new market would open up. Instead of having to look for Maryland wines in specialty wine shops, Marylanders could support their state businesses by buying the wine directly.
Just as obviously, shipping the wine would incur additional costs to the wine makers. Shipping materials, labels, boxes, and transportation would all help the Maryland economy. Jobs would be created as wineries would need more people to ship their product to individuals, rather than to businesses.
Enter the Maryland State Legislature who, while allowing wineries to ship their product, imposed a permit fee, a $1000 bond requirement, a $100 annual insurance fee, and an annual fee of $200 paid directly to the state.
Predictably, many of the winemakers are passing on the program.