BLOG: Crazy Obama lawyers helping

Tom Jackson
Mar 14, 2012


If you follow the book biz, you may already know that the Justice Department is threatening to sue Apple and five book publishers over their business practices, forcing them to go along with's effforts to set book prices.

In theory, I ought to support the Justice Department's strong arm tactics, since I'm a cheapskate and I like inexpensive books. I got a Kindle for Christmas, and I've already filled it with about two dozen books. Many only cost me about $1.

But as my experience shows, doesn't need much help. As everyone knows — except, apparently, Barack Obama's attorney general — Amazon is close to achieving almost total dominance of the book world. It's already succeeded in putting Borders out of business, and Barnes and Noble is struggling to survive.

I don't like $15 ebooks, either, but my approach is a little different from Eric Holder's: With very rare exceptions, I just won't buy them.

If the Obama administration is looking for other useless lawsuits to file at taxpayer expense, I have a couple of suggestions. This week, the Justice Department should file a lawsuit demanding that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie get their fair share of publicity. Next week, Justice should sue Major League Baseball and insist that the New York Yankees finally get an opportunity to field a competitive team.

 UPDATE:  On Facebook, Jeffrey Quick writes,  ‎"In theory, I ought to support the Justice Department's" In theory of course, you should do no such thing, as you aren't generally extorting values from others. 

Jeffrey makes a good point. I DON'T support the theory behind the Justice Department's case. I probably should have written, "Some might think I ought to support the Justice Department's strong arm tactics, since ... "




Right, but it was totally ok for congress to spend a ton of time and money going after baseball players who lied about something that wasn't against the rules at the time. It's a little bit their job to go after possible anti-trust violations, so maybe just let them do that for a while.


You could have just stopped the title at "Crazy Obama".  Enough said.



Baseball players may have been within the law when they did what they did, but the last time I checked, perjury (and obstruction) have NEVER been legal. Do correct me if I'm rong...


Hah. Amen!


SamAdams: They didn't testify before congress about perjury and obstruction, they testified about their own personal steroid use (after which, several of those players who testified got in trouble for perjuring themselves during that hearing). So... you're right, but that has nothing to do with what congress spent years (and god only knows how much money) investigating them for.

BW1's picture

SamAdams : Baseball players may have been within the law when they did what they did, but the last time I checked, perjury (and obstruction) have NEVER been legal. Do correct me if I'm wrong...

Well, sure, if you ignore the bigger issue of Congress's abuse of subpoena power.  Perhaps lying was the wrong approach, but I doubt they'd have faired any better if they gave the right answer, which was "it's none of your business what I choose to put in my own body."

Since when is it part of the federal government's legitimate role to investigate such things?  MLB is, ultimately SHOW BUSINESS and steroids are just using technology to enhance the show.  Congress might just as well investigate the "scandal" of silicone implant use among "Baywatch" stars, or the "scandal" of CGI characters in "The Phantom Menace"   The only legitimate control on steroids in MLB is the market; if fans want natural players, then they can withhold their business until MLB delivers

Sam, I'm curious - what made you decide to become such a big government statist recently?


I am curious as to why the Federal Government would agree to violate their own law against price fixing?  Why would the AG file a suit to fix prices on books when it is a total violation of the anti trust act and a clear violation of price fixing???? 

It makes absolutely no sense for the federal government to take this stance since it is a direct violation of the very law it set up to keep people from doing this in the capitalist market.  It stops things such as fixing prices in EXCUSE ME....gasoline, milk, butter, stocks, etc.  If this is done, then it is only a matter of time before all items can have this done to them without reservation.  Is that not correct?  

Is this nothing more than another way to circumvent the Supreme Court rulings on price fixing?


I have a problem with 'wanna be' reporters introducing a story in the manner as has been done here. It leaves those who care about the truth, having to research the story that is the basis for the comments on their own. (not always a bad idea anyway) By headlining the story in the manner done here without the meat and potatos of the story only highlights the bias of the writer. Reporting stories with an obvious blatant bias is great on your resume if seeking a job at Fox, but is poor form for a conscientious reporter. Hint: answer WHY the suit was filed, the basis for the suit, and what the suit is aiming to accomplish. AFTER the basic details are given, THEN you introduce your opinion. 

Captain Gutz


This "story" is written under what is called a blog. "Blog" is another term for "opinion piece" or "editorial"

In regards to perjury, lying, and obstructing justice goes: “ Lying has to do with your state of mind..” US Attorney General Eric Holder. I think he borrowed that from George Costanza, “ Remember its not lie, if you believe it” Now that they are finished running guns and rubbing elbows with drug lords, they have the resources to focus on the big issues like this.