Obamacare

Reason Morning Links: Google, ACORN, and Health Care Stocks

|

• The Senate banking committee approves a financial regulation bill.

• Google's war with Chinese censors heats up.

• How health stocks fared the day after the health care bill was passed.

• ACORN shuts down as a national operation.

• Canada to Coulter: If you'd like to be a free-speech martyr, we're happy to oblige.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

138 responses to “Reason Morning Links: Google, ACORN, and Health Care Stocks

  1. Okay my fellow liberty lovers….today is the long awaited day to make a difference in 2010! Rand Paul’s moneybomb is today. Donate now!

    Here’s at least one reason: Reason: “National Security Republicans Go Gunning for Senate Front-Runner Rand Paul”

  2. I heard on news radio this morning that Obama is “disappointed” that Google couldn’t work things out with China. In other words, he’s disappointed that an American company and technology leader couldn’t apologize to the totalitarian regime in China for having the temerity to discover that China had tried to hack its systems.

    That’s what I like about Obama. Always defending American interests.

    1. For the first time in my life, I’m proud of Google Image Search

      1. Get over yourself Michelle, your trunk ain’t all that!

    2. One and done.

      If not sooner.

  3. You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression.

    There is no such thing as a reasonable limit on expression.

    1. freedom of expression, even

    2. One of the uses of Christopher Hitchens is in defending free speech, even against the Canadian scourge. Observe. “The excellent and overpraised Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes.”

    3. You can’t yell “fire!” in a crowded theater!!!

      From that easy-to-remember rule, we conclude that we can regulate any expression that liberals don’t like.

      Just ask my friends Chad and Tony.

      1. Here’s another easy-to-remember rule: to the extent that speech is not a means to establishing and maintaining a particular sort of government, then speech may be regulated.

        OK, maybe it’s not that easy to remember. But it does constitute the single principle on which the progressives’ attitude to freedom of speech is founded.

        1. Speaking of progressives and speech:

          “I have always been among those who believe that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking.” -Woodrow Wilson

          1. Unless, of course, you’re criticizing my war, in which case I will throw your ass in the gaol.

            1. +1 for Sedition Laws

      2. What about conservatives constantly trying make flag burning illegal? They only went for the Amendment after they got smacked down for passing a Congressional Act. Or obscenity laws? Reds and Blues are both pretty bad when it comes to free speech. They only want free speech that they like.

        1. Relevance?

          Or just a needless tu quoque ad hominem?

          1. My point is that distaste for the 1st Amendment isn’t a lefty thing, it’s a lefty and righty thing.

            1. Who says that pro-flag burning “conservatives” arent leftists?

        2. America is a nationality. Flag burning represents violent hate for the nationality represented by the flag (in many countries, flag burning is accompanied by calls for death). Public expressions of hate for specific nationalities with implied violence is a hate crime. Therefore, flag burning is a hate crime; hate crimes are an exception to the first amendment, so no special amendment is necessary to make it illegal.

          1. What if you burn a flag for a different reason? Or is this parody? It’s so hard to tell sometimes.

            1. Criminalizing hate speech is a crazy, anti-freedom concept. Even if the target is a nation.

              Ditto for hate crime. Intent matters, of course, but it’s what you intended to do that’s relevant, not why you intended to do it. How does it help the victim or society to punish violence tied to prejudice more than violence tied to apathy?

          2. “in many countries, flag burning is accompanied by calls for death”

            As are Muhammad cartoons (piss be upon him).

        3. I think the right is somewhat better on speech, particularly right-leaning justices, but Mo is correct–the right has it’s own issues with true freedom of speech.

          I’m not exactly an absolutist, thinking that criminalizing fraud and perjury (for example) are good things, but I do think the “marketplace of ideas” should be as wide open as possible. Certainly, we should not have broad laws governing “indecency” on the airwaves, not should an otherwise legal burning of the flag be illegal.

      3. yes you can!
        but the owner’s property rights mean you can be kicked out or even banned for life… and of course you would be liable for any tort resulting from your actions…
        at least in a free country

      4. You can’t yell “fire!” in a crowded theater!!!

        Well, you should, if there’s actually you know, a fire.

      5. Actually, the correct quote is: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”

        People tend to forget the “falsely” part. It’s perfectly legal to yell “fire” – when there is, in fact, a fire.

        1. For those about to rock…

        2. Can you yell “tort reform” in a flaming theater full of lawyers?

          1. Is the theatre really gay or is it on fire?

          2. Why would you attempt to raise their awareness at all?

        3. Or if you dont cause a panic. Say, because its obviously humorous.

          1. what if the fire is part of the movie?

  4. Prepared for Failure
    …If you believe as I do that the president’s health-care reform legislation will not perform as advertised, you can see it as a failure of the policy itself. Or you can see it as an inevitable consequence of the fact that the legislation was, as liberal wonks insist, a “moderate Republican bill,” one that true progressives supported only very reluctantly. So to fix the legislation, we’ll need to spend more money, further centralize the system, and impose tighter regulation and control. And if that doesn’t work, well, clearly we need to spend still more money, centralize the system even more, and impose even tighter regulation and control. Wash, rinse, repeat.

    1. A moderate Republican bill that not one Republican moderate or otherwise voted for. Talk about doublespeak. 1984 was a warning, not a how-to guide.

      1. Although the quote given is a Reihan Salam paraphrase of the other side, it is indeed what the liberal wonks are saying.

        The actual lack of Republican moderates voting for the bill has to be bad for the cognitive dissonance among the lefties.

  5. Canada to Coulter: If you’d like to be a free-speech martyr, we’re happy to oblige.

    That letter is chilling, but Francois Houle is saying precisely what the American left has been parroting since the Tea Party protests began last year: free speech has its limits; if you disagree with those in power you’re a racist and a hate-monger; speech itself is a form of violence. The American left is pushing this tripe even after their ObamaCare victory, and they will be all the way to the November elections. Suppressing freedom of speech, freedom of assembly–even the right of the people to have their grievances redressed–is a key strategy of the Democrats and their accomplices in the press.

    1. “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

    2. Strange how, despite hate and bigotry can be found throughout the political spectrum, hate crime charges only tend to be brought against people with opinions that offend the left. It’s almost as if hate crimes legislation is just the first step of an attempt to eventually criminalize disagreement with them.

      1. I don’t know. I think that one of the admirable qualities of the left is that they do (or at least did) really care about helping people in groups who have been historically shit on. Unfortunately they fuck it up right away by making divisive laws which serve to further separate such groups rather than trying to secure rights for everyone and to get rid of irrelevant distinctions like membership in special protected classes.

        1. one of the admirable qualities of the left is that they do (or at least did) really care about helping people in groups who have been historically shit on.

          (a) Evidence? Their actions, and the results thereof, speak louder than their pablumey rhetoric. As you observe, “they fuck it up right away by making divisive laws which serve to further separate such groups rather than trying to secure rights for everyone and to get rid of irrelevant distinctions like membership in special protected classes.” Makes one wonder, non?

          (b) And those nasties on the right don’t?

          1. I don’t know. I think that one of the admirable qualities of the left is that they do (or at least did) really care about helping exploiting people in groups who have been historically shit on.

            FIFY

      2. +1 for Thought Criminal’s eloquent summation.

    3. Why you think this is limited to the left escapes me. The “right” has its own limits. Free speech zones around the RNC, “pre-detention” of WTO protesters, etc. The established moderates want their “acceptable” views, and only their views, to be heard.

      1. The left has no monopoly on repressive tactics, agreed. But I’d rather focus on the present than rehash every bit of political history back to Revolutionary times.

        1. Thank you, ed, I’m sick of the “but what about the other side!” tactic.

          1. No, no why would we want to talk about your Republican buttbuddies bringing this country closer to fascism than it ever was before, that would be distasteful.

            We’ve now got imaginary tyrants with a penchant for oral rape around every corner, after all.

            1. Bush brought us closer to fascism in the sense of the police state, then Obama brought us closer to fascism in the sense of the corporatist state (without walking back many of Bush’s changes). We’re close enough to taste it, if the government doesn’t collapse first. The next time we get one party rule, I think we’ll officially make the transition.

            2. You have a strange sexual fixation.

              In any case, are “free speech zones” at a convention really equivalent to, say, Woodrow Wilson throwing Eugene V. Debs and others in jail for years for opposing World War I peacefully? “Closer to fascism than it ever was before,” really?

  6. the bill would in part establish a bureau inside the Federal Reserve to protect consumers and set up a council of regulators to survey threats to the financial system.

    So, this bureau *inside the Fed* is to survey threats to the financial system.

    Sounds like an easy job.

  7. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.

    Psst, Ann. Say: “With all due respect to the distinguished gentleman from Ottawa, hopefully you will STFU.”

    1. lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well

      Sure, Monsieur Houle, just like the “reasoned and intelligent discussion” between the First Peoples and the Provicial Police @ Ipperwash and BC in 1995.

      Admittedly not as good as the action in any large US city on any given day…but this is Canada we’re talking aboot.

    2. I’d just tell him “take off, you hoser.”

      1. To the Great White North!

    3. Why would telling persons A and B to shut up improve the dialog between persons C and D?

      1. Because A and B are unmutual?

        1. Damn mutuality!

    4. I’m no fan of Coulter, but I’d be impressed if she went there and dared the Canadians to lock her up. It’s not like she’s a Nazi advocating violence, so I’m not sure why someone like her would get a letter like this.

      1. It’s not like she’s a Nazi advocating violence, so I’m not sure why someone like her would get a letter like this.

        Because she is not a Nazi.

        Anti-freedom countries welcome Nazis, just like Syria embraced David Duke over four years ago.

        1. Not Canada.

        2. Well worth the read. Thanks for sharing this information. I got a chance to know about this gamebookers bonus

  8. Powerful Lies
    Most people become stressed when lying, but new research shows that people with power feel just fine when lying ? and are better at getting away with it.

    1. I am feeling so good today even I have trouble believing it.

      1. Remember, Jerry: It’s not a lie if you believe it.

    2. So, science has proven that power corrupts?

      1. No, just a vindication of what I already said. Apparently memories are short.

  9. ACORN shuts down as a national operation.

    joe expresses his grief as only he knows how… by masturbating into a bag of Fritos and then eating them on the toilet while sobbing.

    1. :clapping:

      The only thing better is if he has some Morrissey playing in the background.

      1. “The More You Ignore Me, the Closer I Get”

        Beware !
        I bear more grudges
        Than lonely high court judges
        When you sleep
        I will creep
        Into your thoughts
        Like a bad debt
        That you can’t pay
        Take the easy way
        And give in
        Yeah, and let me in
        Oh, let me in
        Oh let me …
        Oh, let me in
        IT’S WAR

        1. SF posts his theme song for our enjoyment.

        2. A friend of mine once said that that third line really should have been “Than lowly high court judges” because it would have been a neat play on words. And I had to agree.

    2. Ummm …. Nachos!

    3. Good description, but I thought it would be more like this cartoon from The Pain Comics.

      1. That assumes joe could even convince a puppet to blow him. But I do like the image.

        1. So is my office’s web blocker preventing me from seeing a Kermit the Frog blumpkin?

          1. No toilet involved. Sorry, dude. It’s back to frantically web-surfing on your lunch break for you.

    4. OK. That was disturbing.

      My guess is that ACORN is not going away at all, but like School of the Americas will just change their name and keep doing what they do best: rig elections.

  10. Dear Canada,

    Bitchy little whiny snits like that is why everyone thinks of you as the creepy, comb-over bachelor uncle of North America.

    Maybe you should hang around with Mexico… he might not have a job and is a little prone to violent mood swings, but at least he knows how to have a good time.

    P.S. Coulter is a twat, you may keep her if you like.

    1. That’s a man, baby!

    2. Bitchy little whiny snits like that is why everyone thinks of you as the creepy, comb-over bachelor uncle of North America.

      Generally, I’m not a fan of what SugarFree says but this sentence wins Post of the Day.

      1. Generally, I’m not a fan of what SugarFree says but this sentence wins Post of the Day.

        Actually, in light of the joe masturbation comment I hereby rescind this statement.

        SugarFree’s on fire today.

        1. Not a fan? You really know how to hurt a guy.

      2. SugarFree is the only reason I come her.

        1. A post by “Enough About Palin” saying SugarFree is why he come her is the RC’z Award winner of the day. Thanks, EAP.

          1. Thanks, EAP.

            RC? Do you keep track of these? You need a blog.

        2. SugarFree is the only reason I cum here or cum her?

    3. Only if we get the Shat.

  11. I can’t stand Ann Coulter, but she does make mostly the right enemies.

  12. Olivia Munn got her unicorn… where’s mine Obama?

    Mildly NSFW, I suppose.

    1. In what universe is that even mildly NSFW?

      You have gone so far past the line that you have no idea where it is anymore.

      1. It wasn’t so much the picture as it was the entire site. Certain posts there contain nudity.

        I work in the Wild West. No filters, no oversight (and even if there was, my wife would be the one doing the overseeing). I’ve been in my ivory tower so long I don’t know what it’s like out there for your average cubicle monkey.

      2. I worked in corporate America. In some companies, it doesn’t matter about the content, it matters how some people feel about the content.

        Although, I admit, had I been taken to HR over that image, they would be talking to a lawyer pretty quickly whether or not I had any “formal action” taken.

        1. This is why I block porn, and only porn, at the firewall. It’s your own best interest in the modern, oppressive workplace regime and frankly, keep your monkey spanking schedule on time at home.

  13. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that…

    Hopefully, you will understand and agree that the honorable lady from Ottawa will hopefully learn to stop abusing the Queen’s English before she attempts to regulate others’ use of it.

    1. She’s from Canada and they tell her she’s slow, eh’.

    2. Actually, Francois is a man’s name.

      Perhaps you saw it as Francoise or maybe you just don’t know any better.

      1. I think he meant to call him a lady – he does have a Frog name

    3. I know “hopefully” meaning “I hope” is deprecated, but I think the usage is so common–almost universal, in fact–that the truth is that it does mean “I hope.”

      I say this as a bit of a grammar fascist myself (who, of course, makes mistakes regularly).

  14. Hey so was anyone at the Washington DC Tea Party?

    Did anyone see this:http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/20/1826688/congressmen-are-abused-by-protesters.html

    Any comments?

    1. Congressman abuse taxpayers every day.

    2. http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..lawmakers/

      I saw it and then saw this.

      1. Thanks Nick that helps a lot. I have something to counter my liberal friends on facebook now.

        1. Yeah with a Fox News story, that’ll convince them. The main promoters of the Tea Party movement couldn’t possibly have an interest in downplaying its ugly bigoted core.

          I can’t wait until immigration reform starts. It will get ugly.

  15. Oh, come on, Canada. Please don’t make me defend Ann Coulter.

    1. I think it’s significant that we’re in a position of having to defend Coulter, who is a provocative bitch but not in any way criminal, rather than the usual suspects, like Nazis. Free speech is usually fought over at the fringes of culturally acceptable speech. The fact that the battle is over someone not advocating racial extermination and violent overthrow of the government is a bit disturbing, even in Canada.

      1. I don’t understand why this is surprising to anyone. I can’t be disturbed because I’m not surprised. Canadian hate speech laws have been enforced like this for a while. Didn’t reason run a whole series on that dude who ran the conservative magazine?

        Then over in Europe, not a day goes by that shit like this doesn’t pop up. Brigitte Bardot, anyone?

        1. I’m aware of Canada’s not-so-free speech. I imagine most here are. It’s just seems like things are getting worse when they go after someone like her. Well, “go after” may be a little unfair. I’m not sure that any legal action would be taken against her, despite the threats from the university.

          1. It would take me thirty seconds on Google to pull up five or six quotes of hers that, if she said them in Canada, she’d be fined for.

            Free speech is like their least favorite thing in the universe. Canadians hate it more than they hate seals!

    2. This is the essence of free speech, eh–defending someone you don’t agree with.

  16. Waitaminute. Where’s Canada again?

    1. It’s the top slice of bread in the North American lard sammich

    2. Well they sure aren’t going to be in South Africa in June*

      *Ok, if there’s one country I can talk down to in soccer, it’s Canada.

      1. Soccer is the world’s gayest sport.

        1. No, that would be lacrosse, EAP.

          1. Um… wrestling?

  17. Canada to Coulter: If you’d like to be a free-speech martyr, we’re happy to oblige.

    Really Canada? You’re going to turn Ann Coulter into a hero for defying your fascist speech code, so much so that I now have to root for her and defend her right to do so?

    Fuck you Canada. Thanks a lot.

  18. If Ann Coulter was sitting behind me in a theater, babbling her usual line of nonsense, I would be forced to flee just as surely as if she screamed “FIRE” at the top of her lungs.

    1. “”If Ann Coulter was sitting behind me in a theater, babbling her usual line of nonsense, I would be forced to flee just as surely as if she screamed “FIRE” at the top of her lungs.””

      No kidding.

      Hey, what about state sovereinty? Shouldn’t Coulter be expected to follow the laws of the host country she visits?

      1. Yes, but that doesn’t mean we can’t ridicule them.

        1. Sure we can. All day long if we want. Unless Obama wants to bring some more change.

          But it’s sort of like watching Mexicans complain about U.S. immigration policies.

          1. I know. That’s exactly what I was saying…

            Ridiculing Canadians is one of my all time favorite pass times.

            1. It’s good to have a favorite pass times. I hope Obama doesn’t take that from you.

            2. Just don’t go there and ridicule them. Hate crime. I think Coulter should cancel the visit and just blog her speech to those who care to listen and she should make sure to blast this nazi a**hole in it. Something offensive about the french would be a nice touch as well.

              1. To be fair, though. He’s not a Nazi. He’s just your average liberal Canadian…

                1. I hate Canadian Nazis.

              2. “””I think Coulter should cancel the visit and just blog her speech to those who care to listen and she should make sure to blast this nazi a**hole in it.”””

                She could, but that wouldn’t put her in the limelight.

      2. I think she should go and get herself in trouble on purpose.

        1. She hasn’t been relevent in the last couple of years. She wants the controversy.

          1. Fine by me. Canada needs to get called out on this issue regularly. Supporting her on this as a matter of principle is less offensive than supporting the usual Illinois Nazi.

        2. If I got a letter like that from a Canadian asshole, the first thing I’d say in my speech would be, “Fuck Canada and all the jew nigger fag cunts who support its restrictions on speech.”

          No one has the right not to be offended and no one has the obligation not to offend.

  19. ACORN shuts down as a national operation

    We must be eternally vigilant. These rats will surface elsewhere.

  20. Here’s a nice irony: in Sinclair Lewis’s 1935 novel It Can’t Happen Here,
    fed-up Americans are fleeing to Canada for freedom.

  21. If only ACORN dies completely, never to be resurrected again to feast at the taxpayer nipple.

    Not holding my breath on that one, though. It’ll be zombified any day now.

  22. Now I just wish Google would quit censoring the automatically guessing search field.

  23. truth,,,,obama people have no idea of the extent to which they have to be gulled in order to be led.”
    “The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one.”
    “All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it.”
    “Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.”pelosi don’t see much future for the Americans … it’s a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities …obama feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance … everything about the behaviour of American society reveals that it’s half Judaised, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold TOGTHER.They include the angry left wing bloggers who spread vicious lies and half-truths about their political adversaries… Those lies are then repeated by the duplicitous left wing media outlets who “discuss” the nonsense on air as if it has merit? The media’s justification is apparently “because it’s out there”, truth be damned. STOP THIS COMMUNIST OBAMA ,GOD HELP US ALL .THE COMMANDER ((GOD OPEN YOUR EYES)) stop the communist obama & pelosi.((open you eyes)) ,the commander

  24. Providing Personal Finance News like Insurance, Loan, Debt, Business, Pension, Payday Loan and other Debt Settlement Blog.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.