NoaIzumiBialosky's Blunders on Townhall.com
January 28th 2009 02:53
It’s been three weeks since I’ve started this blog, and I’ve learned a lot from doing it. Editorial Fact Check (working title) is my analysis of certain opinion pieces with a focus on where they’re factually wrong. To be blunt, between posts, I’m waiting around for someone somewhere to write something stupid. Naturally, this leads to a “feast or famine” type situation, and for the past three days, it’s been a famine. Since midnight Sunday, I’ve been looking, and I’d found a few articles with untruths, but nothing meaty, nothing that would justify devoting a blog post to it. Then I ran across this little gem on Townhall.com this morning, which isn’t as meaty as I was hoping for, but the meat there is is just falling off the bone.
Barack's Horrible Beginning
It’s a grabber of a title, I’ll say that for it. Not to mention disrespectful, now that I think about it. The author’s first claim is that President Obama’s recent new rules on lobbyists in his administration “eviscerate” the First Amendment.
Riiiiight. Am I the only one who finds that a wee bit overstated, like, 100%? I’m tempted to think it’s a gag or a satirical piece, but I have a feeling that Mr. Bialosky was being entirely serious.
This is a pretty good analysis of the new rules.
Really Long Link
Lobbying is arguably protected under the First Amendment (through good old free speech, however, not the “redress of grievances” clause), but the law puts no restrictions on current lobbyists or lobbying activities. It’s only ex-lobbyists and wannabe lobbyists that the law applies to. In fact, the new rules sound like a good thing for lobbying in America. The fewer lobbyists leave the business for a government job, the more are left to help people redress those grievances.
The second claim, that the new rules intolerably restrict people leaving government service, makes sense only if you think (as the author apparently wants us to) that lobbying is the only thing that officials can do in the private sector (sounds kind of insulting when phrased that way, doesn’t it?). It’s a popular choice, to be sure, but hardly the only one available.
Besides, the restrictions on former administration officials only last as long as the administration does. After 2013 or 2017, anyone who worked under President Obama can do whatever they want, including lobby the government, as much as they want. Bialosky doesn’t mention that.
The second part of the piece is about the executive order against torture. (BTW, this piece could have really been written better. It reads like two different articles awkwardly sewn together. Then again, what quality of writing can you expect from an accountant?) As for that issue, I addressed it in much more detail here:
Really Long Link
Finally, there was this:
“our new president … decided to move dangerous terrorists to American soil and to give them show trials to protect their rights”
That might turn out to be the case, but right now, the claims are completely bogus. The author can’t know what our new president intends to do, because, as far as anyone knows, our new president doesn’t know what our new president intends to do. If it’s not out of line, might I suggest that Mr. Bialosky spend less time in front of the crystal ball and more time editing his essay next time?
Barack's Horrible Beginning
It’s a grabber of a title, I’ll say that for it. Not to mention disrespectful, now that I think about it. The author’s first claim is that President Obama’s recent new rules on lobbyists in his administration “eviscerate” the First Amendment.
Riiiiight. Am I the only one who finds that a wee bit overstated, like, 100%? I’m tempted to think it’s a gag or a satirical piece, but I have a feeling that Mr. Bialosky was being entirely serious.
This is a pretty good analysis of the new rules.
Really Long Link
Lobbying is arguably protected under the First Amendment (through good old free speech, however, not the “redress of grievances” clause), but the law puts no restrictions on current lobbyists or lobbying activities. It’s only ex-lobbyists and wannabe lobbyists that the law applies to. In fact, the new rules sound like a good thing for lobbying in America. The fewer lobbyists leave the business for a government job, the more are left to help people redress those grievances.
The second claim, that the new rules intolerably restrict people leaving government service, makes sense only if you think (as the author apparently wants us to) that lobbying is the only thing that officials can do in the private sector (sounds kind of insulting when phrased that way, doesn’t it?). It’s a popular choice, to be sure, but hardly the only one available.
Besides, the restrictions on former administration officials only last as long as the administration does. After 2013 or 2017, anyone who worked under President Obama can do whatever they want, including lobby the government, as much as they want. Bialosky doesn’t mention that.
The second part of the piece is about the executive order against torture. (BTW, this piece could have really been written better. It reads like two different articles awkwardly sewn together. Then again, what quality of writing can you expect from an accountant?) As for that issue, I addressed it in much more detail here:
Really Long Link
Finally, there was this:
“our new president … decided to move dangerous terrorists to American soil and to give them show trials to protect their rights”
That might turn out to be the case, but right now, the claims are completely bogus. The author can’t know what our new president intends to do, because, as far as anyone knows, our new president doesn’t know what our new president intends to do. If it’s not out of line, might I suggest that Mr. Bialosky spend less time in front of the crystal ball and more time editing his essay next time?
| 43 |
| Vote |
