Entitled to having their way
by Tom Sullivan
We haven't heard that much about "entitlements" in the press lately. There's been too much extremist lunacy to cover on Capitol Hill, on the campaign trail, in state capitols, and in Idaho, of course.
Speaking of Idaho, Mother Jones celebrates victory in court in a defamation lawsuit brought against the pulication by ["He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named"], a billionaire Republican political donor from Idaho:
Litigation like this, Bergman said, is "being used to tame the press, to cause publishers and broadcasters to decide whether to stand up or stand down, to self-censor."
You really should read the whole thing. It is a Byzantine tale with a touch of Spanish Inquisition. Like some other billionaires we know, "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" apparently feels entitled to be free from examination by the press and goes to some extreme lengths to punish transgressors. At least those who might be easily subjugated by the prospect of a mountain of legal fees.
It reminds one of the tantrums thrown on Wall Street after the financial meltdown, of the "pathological" environment and "sense of impunity" the rich feel, and of thin-skinned, short-fingered vulgarians who never forget a slight even after a quarter of a century. Do the peasants still not realize they must kowtow before their long suffering betters?
It is an awfully entitled viewpoint from royalists who grouse about everyone else's entitlements.