In the past, I've blogged some comments about the Newspaper Revitalization Act being floated by Senator Cardin of Maryland, a guy who will surely line his pockets with dough for pulling this off for the bedridden newspaper industry. On numerous occasions, Obama has publicly expressed interest in a newspaper bailout bill, as well as his "concerns" for independent reporting from around the blogosphere (in other words, the opinions and passions of those who owe no allegiance to the establishment in return for position, power, and money). Read carefully between the lines on this comment from Herr Obama:
Obama said that good journalism is "critical to the health of our democracy," but expressed concern toward growing tends in reporting -- especially on political blogs, from which a groundswell of support for his campaign emerged during the presidential election.
"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding," he said.
Now, aside from the whole bailout scam coming down the pipe, I think there is something more important to scrutinize here. One issue is, of course, the fear the establishment has concerning the Internet and the millions of people who post freely, and with little opportunity costs, on newsgroups, discussion boards, blogs, websites, organized forums, and so on. The other notable snippet in this story is the GovernmentSpeak that has become an avocation for the current Liar-in-Chief.
For example, let me define Obama's "mutual understanding." This would be something akin to his health care "debate" - that is, we'd have the appearance of debate, set up so that there appears to be an overwhelming acceptance of his plans, with a few affectionate skeptics on hand to lob softball questions at the president or his proponents in Congress. The Liar-in-Chief cordially accepts the underhanded pitches thrown his way, with a warm smile and benevolent manner, and responds with a mouthful of fluffy-but-meaningless piffle that reassures the questioner and appears to solve another potential issue that may concern any anticipated objectors.
When the debate turns into vocal dissension that disrupts the one-sided sermonizing - due to passionate renegades who oppose him on the basis of the truly fundamental flaws of central planning, or even lame partisan politicking - the party in charge immediately resorts to dirty tactics charging the opposition with a politically incorrect atrocity, as so declared by the state, such as "racism." After all, "mutual understanding" has a place in harmless dialogue where the end result is a difference of opinion, and therefore irreconcilable differences, and no harm or aggression is the outcome. However, when the terms are the individuals vs. the state (the US being the largest and most coercive governmental body in the world), with government resorting to unrestricted aggression and violence if dictates are not followed, it follows that "mutual understanding" means non-resistance on the part of the individual, or acquiescence in the schemes being cast upon him.
Can you have a "mutual understanding" with someone who vows to kill you? Can you have a "mutual understanding" with someone who aspires to kidnap your child? Neither can you have "mutual understanding" with a body of government that wants to rob your liberties, dismiss your self-ownership, and have its way with your life. Resistance to government violence - on matters of person, property, life, or livelihood - and therefore the defense of individual liberties, is the opposite of "mutual understanding." "Mutual understanding" is sacrifice to the Gods of the collective and submission to the commands of the self-appointed deciders. Resistance is exercising one's natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in a manner that best suits the individual without commencing aggression against other free men.