icarus_drowning

Hey, at least the substance is there... if this situation is as you characterized it, I see it as a rather massive breach of trust on the part of Tumblr. The tone might be regrettable, but that's a minor concern.

While I wasn't a huge fan of the tone here ("They really don’t give a shit, huh?"), it does seem like something that needs to be brought to everyone's attention.

I can't see how it won't end up looking like a massive cut in entitlement spending, probably along the lines of Paul Ryan's most recent doomed proposal:

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

This isn't to cheerlead Republican strategies (after all, I think the heart of Ryan's proposal is decidedly anti-Republican, since Republicans and Democrats alike seem to have based their party orthodoxy on not cutting spending, be that in the form of tax cuts or increased entitlements, respectively), merely to offer an example of the kind of cutting that will, but necessity, have to happen.

Of course, there's always the "collapse of the US" scenario.

Optimists, therefore, will prepare for the painful years of budget-cutting by refusing to rely on entitlements in their later years.

Pessimists? Well, I suppose joining a survivalist encampment doesn't sound that bad...

The word "market" appears in the article exactly 3 times. Although it is clear the author is making at least one argument that market forces are more efficient than government regulation, it is hardly the only point of the piece.

During the first half of the article, for example, he notes that the Kindle programs did not violate the ADA because they did not force any student to use a Kindle, and allowed them access to alternative materials, including (presumably) more accessible media.

I'd hardly call that "libertarian bullshit". (Indeed, I suspect the author would be less offended by your characterization of his writing as "bullshit" so much as he would "libertarian": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_York)

My chief problem with the article has less to do with York's premise (which seems to be that this was an example of horrifically inane government overreach) and more with York's overt sensationalism-- he himself points out that Amazon has already produced a fully-accessible Kindle-- why then the breathless article? Isn't the overt stupidity of the CRD fairly moot at this point?

Moreover, who wants to read a textbook on a Kindle?