Faux constitutional conflict. Not the first time.
They have been one, freedom of speech and media property rights, under the skin, here, from the beginning.
The difference, now, is that it is an autocratic foreign regime buying media.
Private property rights, right?
Like buying, or making, Twinkies, or machine tools, anywhere on the globe. Who should care where, or which, it is? Laissez faire economics at work.
Let me guess. Forbes will down size, and or off shore, say, 10,000 journalists (Microsoft just did 18,000 symbolic analysts etc) and other workers.
Join the Gilligan's Island off shored population.
Asians can do all this free speech press selling nonsense better, and cheaper, and with much better Asian management control regulation on Anti Asian content.
Japan did not put up with Japan bashing for very long here, either, long ago. They had a solution for that kind of freedom of press: it was partly overtly political, but also partly a so called market solution, similar to China's now.
As Thurston pointed out, in Boca, in 2006,
"There are property rights, and then there are big property rights. Who do you think they will bail out, you or me?"
David Brooks dubbed another person Thurston Howell Romney, but that was in 2011 or 2012.
Say, didn't Romney earn that epithet by something he, also, said, somewhere down there, near Boca, too?
Anyway I have concluded that Brooks, nothing better to do that day than get yelled at by the editor, had read my blog some time in the prior year or so. Blog only started 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment